A question to all atheists!

[Alex K]

So, in this possible world there would have never been a natural world (or time). Now, do you believe in such a possible world that the natural world (and time) could come into existence?

Riight...

Clearly, I'm the pseudo-intellectual here.

Eh, life's too short to waste any more of it on this idiot...

[Gestas]

I think Alex is a pseudo-intellectual and I'd be very surprised if he were an actual physicist. Maybe he lied to you guys about being one? Or maybe physicists are overrated? Moreover, not every physicist has the same view on time.

Here's an interesting alternative: maybe you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. It's just something to think about.

Or maybe you guys are so used to circle-jerking and sniffing your own farts in an echo-chamber that you're unable to realize when you're getting owned in a debate. It's like a cult in here... very disturbing.

[Alex K]

Classic Dunning-Kruger or just trolling?

[Jesster]

Here's an interesting alternative: maybe you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. It's just something to think about.

Or maybe you guys are so used to circle-jerking and sniffing your own farts in an echo-chamber that you're unable to realize when you're getting owned in a debate. It's like a cult in here... very disturbing.

I imagine you would be familiar with cults. What's the name of yours again?

[Gestas]

So, in this possible world there would have never been a natural world (or time). Now, do you believe in such a possible world that the natural world (and time) could come into existence?

Riight...

Clearly, I'm the pseudo-intellectual here.

It appears so.

Looks like you don't have a good response for my last post. Oh well. You don't understand what possible world semantics is in modal logic, do you?

Let me repeat myself. Let's say there's a possible world where a natural world (including time) never existed. Could that possible world produce a natural world? Going by what you've said in the past (lul), the answer is no, which means you must think this natural world is past-eternal.

[Alex K]

Riight...

Clearly, I'm the pseudo-intellectual here.

It appears so.

Looks like you don't have a good response for my last post. Oh well. You don't understand what possible world semantics is in modal logic, do you?

Let me repeat myself. Let's say there's a possible world where a natural world (including time) never existed. Could that possible world produce a natural world? Going by what you've said in the past (lul), the answer is no, which means you must think this natural world is past-eternal.

Hehe

[Jesster]

Eh, life's too short to waste any more of it on this idiot...

Too true. I think we have another classic case of a pigeon on the chess board here.

[Alex K]

Nice attempt at gaslighting though.

[Gestas]

It appears so.

Looks like you don't have a good response for my last post. Oh well. You don't understand what possible world semantics is in modal logic, do you?

Let me repeat myself. Let's say there's a possible world where a natural world (including time) never existed. Could that possible world produce a natural world? Going by what you've said in the past (lul), the answer is no, which means you must think this natural world is past-eternal.

Hehe

And there you have it...

---

Eh, life's too short to waste any more of it on this idiot...

Too true. I think we have another classic case of a pigeon on the chess board here.

[Alex K]

I wasn't aware that they awarded PhDs in delusions of grandeur!