@LeeWoofenden so morality is arbitrary?

or as they say, you have pushed the problem up one level

@TRiG Yes . . . and?

@LeakyNun Only if God is arbitrary.

@LeakyNun There aren't any higher levels than God.

@LeeWoofenden well, did God determine his nature?

@LeeWoofenden I mean, you have pushed the problem from men to God without solving it

@LeakyNun That's assuming there's a problem in the first place--which I don't think there is.

the basis of morality

@LeakyNun That question has no meaning.

@LeeWoofenden then who determined the nature of God?

It's like asking whether God created God.

Or like asking what caused the first cause.

then did God create God?

@LeakyNun No. God is by definition uncreated.

how can something be uncreated?

@LeakyNun How can something not be uncreated? If there isn't anything that's uncreated, then nothing at all can exist.

ex nihilo nihil fit.

hmm...

@LeakyNun infinite regression really isn't a good solution to the problem of existence.

@LeeWoofenden maybe

@LeakyNun All that does is push every problem up one level . . . then up one more level . . . then up one more level . . . ad infinitum.

@LeeWoofenden maybe someday you should phone in TheAtheistExperience... just a random suggestion

@LeeWoofenden If something (or someone) always existed, then that too is infinite regression, in a more subtle form. Each second is based on the previous one. It's turtles all the way down.

@LeakyNun If you have a slightly more specific recommendation, please let me know.

@LeeWoofenden I don't know, anything

@TRiG You're assuming that the self-existent being must be characterized by time. But God, in my view, is not characterized by time. Time is a property of the physical universe, which is a created entity.

@LeakyNun As I said . . . .

@LeeWoofenden maybe you can discuss with them how they have a narrow view of Christianity or how they interpret the bible too literally

@LeeWoofenden then God would have an infinite regress in another entity if not time

also, the scientific solution to the question "what is before big bang" afaict is either "nonsense" or "no idea"

how can you know that the universe is created?

@LeakyNun Do you have reason to believe that they would be interested in such a discussion with me, and amenable to rethinking their narrow view of Christianity and their literal view of the Bible?

@LeakyNun No. God is simply infinite. No regress. God exists in an infinite, eternal state outside of space and time.

@LeakyNun So the scientific "solution" to where we came from is, "We don't know."

@LeakyNun How can you know that the universe is not created?

@LeeWoofenden I don't.

@LeakyNun Then why do you call yourself an atheist rather than an agnostic?

@LeeWoofenden is this your first day dealing with an atheist? no offense

@LeakyNun If you don't believe in God, what would create the universe?

@LeeWoofenden I don't know.

@LeakyNun So you don't know that there's no God.

@LeeWoofenden correct.

@LeakyNun Then you're agnostic, not atheist.

@LeakyNun Do you take it as a possibility that there is a God?

@LeeWoofenden yes

@LeakyNun Agnostic, not atheist.

Agnostic = don't know. Atheist = no God.

We already had this discussion a year ago.

@LeakyNun These are not the common definitions of agnostic and atheist.

@LeeWoofenden what are your definitions?

wow, it was my birthday

@LeakyNun It's not an issue of my definitions. It's a question of how those words are ordinarily used in the English Language by most speakers of the English Language.

@LeeWoofenden It's also a question of how atheists use those words.

@LeakyNun Atheists can have their own special definitions if they want. But only for talking to each other. They don't get to redefine the way everyone else uses English.

Tell me the definitions you use

google dictionary: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

@LeakyNun Agnostic = I don't know if there's a God. Atheist = I don't believe there is a God. That's how the bulk of English-speakers use those words.

@LeeWoofenden it's the same as my picture

@LeakyNun Your picture doesn't have a category for "agnostic."

@LeeWoofenden at least the top left hand corner is the same with your definitions

there may be controversies in the bottom left hand corner, but that is out of my concern

@LeakyNun There are people who identify themselves as "agnostics." Not agnostic atheists or agnostic theists. Your chart doesn't include them.

Agnostic as a noun, not an adjective.

@LeeWoofenden agnostics = agnostic atheists + agnostic theists

that's how the law of excluded middle works

you either believe or you don't

@LeakyNun No. Agnostics neither "Don't believe any god exists" nor "Believe a god exists." They're agnostics because they don't know whether a god exists.

is this a false dilemma?

@LeakyNun It's just false.

@LeeWoofenden what's the third position?

It is possible not to know something.

your arguments sound like this to me

You're claiming that agnostics don't exist.

@LeeWoofenden no, I'm not

I'm claiming that they are either agnostic theists or agnostic atheists.

an apple is either a red apple or a green apple

"hey, but your chart doesn't include a category for apples in general"

@LeakyNun Ergo, you're claiming that no such thing as a simple agnostic exists. I think a lot of agnostics would be very annoyed at your claim.

@LeeWoofenden no, I'm not claiming that.

@LeakyNun You're telling me that all agnostics either think there is a God or think there isn't a God. I think that's false.

@LeeWoofenden that isn't what I told you

@LeakyNun You're saying that all agnostics fall within your chart. That means all agnostics either "Don't believe any god exists" nor "Believe a god exists."

@LeeWoofenden yes, that's what I said

@LeakyNun And I think millions of agnostics would reject your definition of their beliefs, and say, "No. I don't know whether or not a God exists. That's why I'm an agnostic, dummy!" (No offense intended.)

@LeeWoofenden knowledge and belief are separate.

@LeakyNun So then they would say, "I neither believe nor don't believe a God exists. I simply don't know." It's really saying the same thing in different words.

@LeeWoofenden what is the complement of believe?

@LeakyNun Disbelieve. So another way for an agnostic to put it would be, "I neither believe in God nor disbelieve in God."

@LeeWoofenden you just said it's the complement.

Are you familiar with the law of the excluded middle?

it says either a statement is true or its complement is true

@LeakyNun You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. Agnostics as that word is commonly used are agnostic because they neither believe in God nor don't believe in God. They don't know whether there is or isn't a God. Ask them for yourself. Arguing semantics with me will just waste more and more and more time.

@LeeWoofenden alright.

then explain your "agnostic, not atheist" things above

@LeakyNun I already did that.

are you claiming that agnostic atheists don't exist?

@LeakyNun The distinctions made in the chart are more often known as "hard atheists" ("gnostic atheists") and "soft atheists" ("agnostic atheists").

@LeeWoofenden I would say that an agnostic is either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist, but they may not know which category they fall into. Is this better for you?

@LeeWoofenden I take that as a no

@LeakyNun Sure, if you want to annoy a whole lot of agnostics who don't want you to define whether they believe in or don't believe in God.

what?

@LeakyNun You're getting all tangled up in words.

@LeeWoofenden you sound like an agnostic can't be an atheist

@LeakyNun Okay, if you want to say you're an agnostic atheist, I'll accept that. Though in common language I would call you a soft atheist.

@LeeWoofenden seriously, I do not appreciate people putting words in others' mouth.

@LeakyNun Especially when that mouth is yours. :-P

@LeeWoofenden I'll accept that if you call me a soft atheist.

@LeeWoofenden precisely.

now should we continue on our main topic?

@LeakyNun Maybe later. I've got some errands to run.

@LeeWoofenden ok

@LeakyNun I doubt we'll get very far debating how we know what we know. But if you want my general view on how we can know there is God and spirit, if we want to, see this article on my blog: Where is the Proof of the Afterlife?

@LeakyNun Wrongo, amigo. I spent most of my life agnostic, and neither of those terms describes me. agnostics = agnostic atheists + agnostic theists This whole line of dishonesty, in trying to pigeon hole people, is something you might want to work on. False dichotomy. Dishonest.

All your diagram and your dogmatic assertion if it as truth succeeds in doing is adding a data point to the atheist = jerk definition. Lucky for me, I've got friends and acquaintances from all over, IRL, who are atheists and aren't jerks to keep that from being my working definition

What are people's thoughts on this question Was Jesus a separate god? It's tagged [jehovah's-witnesses] but none of the answers are from that perspective, and it seems like much of the answers and comments devolved into arguments of right and wrong. Should it be deleted? Or could we edit it in some way?

(Also, hiya @KorvinStarmast, @RedRiderX)

C.S. Lewis maybe?

It does seem vaguely familiar.

@El'endiaStarman It's funny--that's what I was just thinking. (chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/38492330#38492330)

Welp, might be rereading two or three of those tonight. Not a bad way to deal with a thunderstorm cancelling my league game.

@nitsua60 Is it the wording which you're paraphrasing, or the general sentiment that God can/will fix everything?

The wording, I'm sure.

@4castle It's closed, 4castle, so that's a good first step. Need to ponder further action

@nitsua60 hey there, amigo, let me take a look around. I think that aphorism is post Aquinas ... I think I've seen it before.

@nitsua60 I think it reaches back to genesis 50:20 but what is presented is a variation on the theme ... will be digging through Mere Christianity later as it's been "quality time" reading lately

@4castle Yeah, the wording.

Sort of a riposte (anachronistically, but I'm flubbing around for the sentiment) to the old "greatest trick the Devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist."

Ooh. That's getting closer.

"The greatest trick God ever played on the Devil was turning everything he did to good."

(Maybe something like that?)

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose." - Romans 8:28

God has no need to trick the devil. I think His mode is to let the devil hoist himself on his own petard, which is pride.

Yeah, both that Romans quote and Gn 50:20 are in the ballpark, but not what I'm thinking of.

(I'm sure someone else said it--I'm not nearly that quotable!)

rightfromtheheart.org/devotions/god-can-turn-evil-into-good-2

Yeah, I have heard similar, and trying to remember the source.

here's a tweet so that fella may have a source

@KorvinStarmast cool. We've definitely narrowed it down to "sometime between Aquinas and Twitter." =D

Muahahah, but it might have been Augustine! :) I suggest you ask this as a question on the C.SE site.

(a) Is quote-ID a thing here? (b) do you think this has enough specificity to work?

@KorvinStarmast Okay, so "theologically between Aquinas and Twitter." =)

Enchiridion by Augustine may have something in it. Checking.

You can try, since C.SE is about Christian beliefs. Ask if the early church or a church father had this belief or something like that.

You've got verse-identification which I'm pretty sure this isn't, and identify-this which only has 2 questions (and is kinda rudely named, IMO: "tell me! now!").

Hmm, that bit of aquinas has the following theme: evil is dependent up on good, but good not dependent upon evil. So that isn't what I was looking for.

Let me propose a tag ...

@KorvinStarmast I'm'a give it a try--would you mind giving it a look-see once I post?

Try the tag [good-and-evil] which we have

I will of course assist, my friend. Naturally.

@KorvinStarmast That's a good one. I'm not going identify-this-for-me-do-my-bidding-sheeple =)

muahaah

What's a good antonym for "esoteric"?

Practical

I want to say that the source is probably someone run-of-the-mill, "vanilla" Christianity.

unadorned

basic

Like, "core" or "kernel"?

You could say it's... >_> <_< ... Mere Christianity...

heh, yeah.

Eh, probably unnecessary to try to qualify it, and doing it that way is just flame-bait.

(My way, that is, not yours, @El'endiaStarman)

But it's the product, most likely, of a philosopher or commentator, and maybe of a theologian

The reason I thought of Aquinas is that on the face of it, the crucifixion was a horribly evil act, in itself, and it intent was to bring despair and remove hope from Jesus followers. (and it succeeded for a short while due to the disciples fleeing/hiding)

And even that was turned to good. It sounds, to me, ,like Aquinas but I may be wrong

@KorvinStarmast Good points, all. Certainly could be someone's reflection on the Crucifixion.

Luckily there aren't that many of those =\

Ohhh.... it's so nice being on a Stack that uses a serif font!

Brian Davies’s “The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil” is very helpfu

FWIW, that's a modern source that might be useful, but I don't have it

Interesting variaion on that here

slideplayer.com/slide/10662932

OK, my son has summoned me. Hope one of our experts can find the answer. I hit a brick wall