What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[GrandizerII]

The PoE argument is trying to prove that evil and God logically cannot exist. The burden of proof is on the atheist (the proponent of the argument). It is not successful (there are a variety of defenses) and most philosophers have moved on and it only continues to get discussed by the internet atheist.

Stop shifting goalposts please. It was clear what I was saying and what I was responding to. Go back and read my previous post with your quotes in it. Nothing you say here has anything to do with what I argued.

Now please demonstrate how it is impossible for people to freely choose good all the time. You made a claim without warrant, so you need to back it up when asked.

If you want to attack free will, you have a long uphill climb. The only defense you have is the assumption of naturalism.

Uphill climb my ass, lol. The logical incoherency is often clear in the definition itself for the type of "free will" defended specifically by theists who believe in libertarian free will. Note, by the way, my specific usages of the word "libertarian" in both this post and my previous response to you. I'm personally a compatibilist, but compatibilist free will is obviously pointless to argue for in the context of this discussion.

All kinds of things cause harm to people. Falling off a ladder for one. Nothing evil going on there.

And? What point of mine is this a response to exactly?

You want God to save people from natural disasters? Isn't that a wholesale violation of free will? You wanting near constant miraculous intervention does not make the argument. God has sufficient reasons for not acting--one of them being preserving free will.

But the free will you speak of is not logically possible. So if we are to go with logic, then your free will argument is a terribly poor defense of the theist's problem of evil and suffering.

I will grant that there is no logical contradiction between the existence of God (even a loving God) and evil. For me, this whole problem of evil and suffering is more about plausibility rather than about possibility. But libertarian free will, nevertheless, logically fails.

But let's suppose we somehow have free will. God still intervenes in our affairs anyway at times, right? So what makes you think that one of God's reasons for not acting is to preserve free will? Maybe he doesn't give two shits about your free will? It's certainly logically possible that he doesn't.

3. Of course we choose sin. No, we often don't create a temptation. But that is irrelevant.

No, given God and sin, we don't always choose to sin.

Hell, even Christians will agree with me on this. When I was a Christian, the belief was that we are all sinners not because we choose to sin but because we are sinful by nature, and that we are slaves to sin in need of divine release from our bondage. I would think that being a slave to sin means you're not free to not sin, and therefore it is not right to say one chooses to sin.

But of course, that depends on what brand of Christianity you adhere to.