How am I strawmanning, is there a different dictionary you are using to define moral relativism? Its clear cut you are just refusing to acknowledge you are wrong.

If you cannot show it empirically then don't call it true. Call it fiction or at a very least a theory. Science doesn't attemp to pass off personal anecdotes or hearsay as truth learn the difference. Why are you still talking to me about "something cannot come from nothing?" I literally just told you no one is making that claim you are creating strawmans in your own head.

Why is callling something that you cannot prove fake wrong to you? Do you automatically believe any magic creature or magic powers? Say I told you I had a flying pig on my farm and it could speak fluently 3 languages and said just trust me bro. You would immediately call bullshit/fake news and demand proof. Well the same way I call bible bullshit with talking snakes, dragons, cherubim, resurrecting people from the dead etc and demand concrete proof. Surely as a grown adult you don't believe all those magic creatures are real do you?

You are once more making a faith-based assumption with nothing to back it up.
Prove that sin exists and not just a made up concept. You cannot talk about sin unless you can prove it or demonstrate it's existence.

Sin belongs in the same category as other superstitious beliefs like a boogeyman under the bed or bad luck if a black cat crosses your path. Sin is a psychological threat for adults to not be naughty as a lump of coal is a threat to children who misbehave.

Do you feel some things are good and some things are evil?

Different schools of philosophy define this term differently. It's not an objective term with one meaning that's agreed upon by everyone.

satanist doctrine "do as thou wilt" seems to me thats were your going

I've also been very clear as to what the context was and how it is applied here. I also never denied that some aspects of it are morally relative to the time/interpretations specifically. But yet addone cannot differentiate between the two.

Which one is he referring to? I just looked up 3 types Descriptive, Meta-ethical and Normative.



No you weren't very clear at all. Thats why I asked for clarification you didn't provide.

It's the title of the book, but Krauss in no way makes the claim that our universe came from nothing. A more apt title for the book would be "A universe from quantum fields" or "why empty space isn't empty".

the title is misleading.

This post was edited by x_h on May 29 2026 03:17pm

I have clarified over and over what I meant.

it's friday. tough week for allergies at work but we made it.