Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
But in the philosophical context that this whole discussion came from, I am using the term 'created' more technically in the philosophical context.
No you're not, you're deliberately choosing a narrower definition of the word in order to play a semantic game.
To be fair, while the God Theory runs into the obvious question of 'Who made God?', the Big Bang Theory runs into the obvious question of 'What went bang?' Both theories posit an an unknown and unknowable Prime Cause.
Always worth going outside on the right night to look at the Great Galaxy in Andromeda, with your eyes receiving light emitted millions of years ago. It will remind you that the universe is very big, and your place in it as a mere hairy primate on an insignificant world is very small (and very temporary), and basically you don't know jack and never will.
No you're not, you're deliberately choosing a narrower definition of the word in order to play a semantic game.
I know you like making short posts (which I appreciate). With that in mind, please just share the definition # in my dictionary dot com post that undermines my point. Thanks.
(If you can't do it, maybe one of the grownups will do that for us.)
To be fair, while the God Theory runs into the obvious question of 'Who made God?', the Big Bang Theory runs into the obvious question of 'What went bang?' Both theories posit an an unknown and unknowable Prime Cause.
Not true at all.
I know you like making short posts (which I appreciate). With that in mind, please just share the definition # in my dictionary dot com post that undermines my point. Thanks.
Several people have already (foolishly) taken the time to clearly explain to you how you're using the word wrong and you've ignored them. Rocco even went out of his way to provide a link for you that's for grade 3-12+ readers --I can't tell if he was being thoughtful or if that's a backhanded insult, tbh.
I think the point is that saying the universe was created at some point implies that the explanation for why the universe came to be is that there was some agent that made it. The intuition pump for this is supposed to be something about how the way things are within our universe seem to only be traceable back to a certain point from the perspective of nomological regularity.
That doesn’t actually establish that there are not other options on the table other than some initial starting point, it just implies that there seems to be some kind of epistemic barrier for us at this point in figuring out whether there was something before the initial conditions, in which case strictly speaking it would be false that there was an act of creation ex nihilo at the point of the initial conditions, or if indeed the universe popped into existence at that point, including matter and the initial energy that was needed to set that matter in motion. However even if we establish that something did pop into existence, that doesn’t mean it popped into existence from nothing (and notice the God theory doesn’t state that anyway). Furthermore, it doesn’t follow from even assuming that something popped into existence from nothing that this means that whatever explains that state of affairs is personal/a mind. It could be some other impersonal thing similar to what was posited by Spinoza, a necessary being that creates necessarily, without any will whatsoever.
Several people have already (foolishly) taken the time to clearly explain to you how you're using the word wrong and you've ignored them. Rocco even went out of his way to provide a link for you that's for grade 3-12+ readers --I can't tell if he was being thoughtful or if that's a backhanded insult, tbh.
And I responded by saying his point was well taken.
I don't believe Rocco was trying to be insulting, but he can speak to that.
I think the point is that saying the universe was created at some point implies that the explanation for why the universe came to be is that there was some agent that made it.
That doesn't follow at all.
Neither
Trolly, did you read my post? Because I already explained this. Now I can see why you got so butthurt when I called you illiterate.
“ Furthermore, it doesn’t follow from even assuming that something popped into existence from nothing that this means that whatever explains that state of affairs is personal/a mind. It could be some other impersonal thing similar to what was posited by Spinoza, a necessary being that creates necessarily, without any will whatsoever.”
No, you made it a starting assumption.
We know the universe exists, all this business about a "creator" necessarily existing is an assumption you've introduced.
Always worth going outside on the right night to look at the Great Galaxy in Andromeda, with your eyes receiving light emitted millions of years ago. It will remind you that the universe is very big, and your place in it as a mere hairy primate on an insignificant world is very small (and very temporary), and basically you don't know jack and never will.
You are speaking the language of evil fluently here.
Are we supposed to know what you mean by this comment?
That's his way of saying "religious people hate facts and the truth"
He means that your language is that of Mordor, which I will not utter here.
I guess the idea is to speak delphically and then continue with anyone who is gullible or weak-minded enough to mistake opacity for profundity. It's akin to listening to a mentalist or a cult leader.
“Always worth going outside on the right night to look at the Great Galaxy in Andromeda, with your eyes receiving light emitted millions of years ago. It will remind you that the universe is very big, and your place in it as a mere hairy primate on an insignificant world is very small (and very temporary), and basically you don't know jack and never will.”
“You are speaking the language of evil fluently here.”
What does this response to the original quote mean exactly?
AI:
Spoiler
The original quote expresses a classic **cosmic perspective** — often called "cosmicism" or "astronomical humility" — inspired by viewing the Andromeda Galaxy (the farthest object visible to the naked eye, with light traveling about 2.5 million years to reach us). It emphasizes:
- The vastness of the universe.
- Humanity's tiny, fleeting role in it ("mere hairy primate on an insignificant world").
- Our profound ignorance ("you don't know jack and never will").
This view can feel profound and humbling to some, evoking wonder at the scale of existence.
The response — **"You are speaking the language of evil fluently here"** — is a sharp, likely sarcastic or accusatory rebuttal. It interprets the original statement not as benign wonder, but as promoting a dangerous mindset. Here's the breakdown:
- **"The language of evil"** metaphorically refers to ideas or rhetoric that are morally corrosive, demotivating, or spiritually harmful — akin to how "speaking evil" in religious contexts (e.g., biblical warnings against slander or malicious speech) spreads harm. "Fluently" implies the original speaker articulates this view skillfully and convincingly.
- The "evil" here ties to **nihilism** (or existential/cosmic nihilism): the belief that life lacks inherent meaning, purpose, or significance due to the indifferent vastness of the universe. This can lead to despair, apathy, indifference to morality, or a sense that nothing ultimately matters — outcomes some philosophers and theologians have historically linked to moral decay or even societal "evils" (e.g., loss of motivation for good actions, ethics, or faith).
- From the responder's likely perspective (possibly religious, optimistic-existential, or anti-nihilistic), reducing human life to temporary insignificance isn't empowering humility — it's defeatist and "evil" because it undermines hope, purpose, human dignity, or belief in greater meaning (e.g., divine purpose, personal agency, or created value).
In essence, the response accuses the quote of eloquently peddling a worldview that erodes motivation and meaning, framing cosmic insignificance as a seductive but toxic idea rather than awe-inspiring truth. It's a strong rejection, implying such talk aligns with forces that diminish the human spirit.
Rococo,
It’s not my responsibility to attend to your derangement syndrome every time I post.
Luckily for you, AI is accessible in a limited capacity for free!
It’s very simple to copy and paste into AI, which tells me the problem is on your end.
the farthest object visible to the naked eye
LMAO.
Here's a short but not complete list of stuff Craig blindly trusts:
The bible
"""AI"""
I don’t blindly trust everything AI spits out.
You just did lol. If you hadn't ignored the quoted sentence you would know why....looks like blindly trusting is just your "thing".
You’re trying to make something irrelevant relevant, and then “own” me with it.
Where did I say it was profound or tells us anything about the universe? I don’t think it’s particularly profound to propose skeptical scenarios. Some skeptical situations may be profound depending on how they are presented, but to just say that such and such state of affairs is consistent with a skeptical scenario is pretty much always going to be the case.The only
My apologies, the "this is not profound" comment was aimed at my own point in the post, not your post(s).
