I am interested in the community's thoughts on a particular hypothetical proposition. And for the sake of this discussion nothing means nonexistent, zero potentiality, or a state of affairs where not one thing exists (regardless of what the things are made of). The natural world would mean all matter and energy, including the behavior the matter and energy exhibits.

The hypothetical proposition is the natural world did not always exist. In other words, there was state of affairs where there was no natural world. Now there is a state of affairs where there is a natural world (planets, gravity, stars, etc.) and we're living in it.

And my question is what, if anything, can be inferred from this hypothetical proposition?

Thank you.

"I don't know" is always a wonderful answer for these situations.

(January 28, 2017 at 8:28 pm)Jesster Wrote: "I don't know" is always a wonderful answer for these situations.

A valid answer, but boring.

Atheists could say "I don't know" about the question "Do deities exist?", but they instead choose to answer, "no" or "probably not" based on logic and contemporary evidence.

That's what I'm asking for now. I'm asking for everyone here to use logic and contemporary evidence to answer the question found in my original post. But if you still want to say "I don't know", then that's fine too.

(January 28, 2017 at 8:32 pm)Gestas Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 8:28 pm)Jesster Wrote: "I don't know" is always a wonderful answer for these situations.

A valid answer, but boring.

Atheists could say "I don't know" about the question "Do deities exist?", but they instead choose to answer, "no" or "probably not" based on logic and contemporary evidence.

That's what I'm asking for now. I'm asking for everyone here to use logic and contemporary evidence to answer the question found in my original post. But if you still want to say "I don't know", then that's fine too.

Intellectual honesty is more important to me than excitement. I'm not going to make things up just to add interesting content to an answer. That's how we get woo.

And yes, atheists can say "I don't know" to the god question. That's what agnostic atheism is.

(January 28, 2017 at 8:26 pm)Gestas Wrote: I am interested in the community's thoughts on a particular hypothetical proposition. And for the sake of this discussion nothing means nonexistent, zero potentiality, or a state of affairs where not one thing exists (regardless of what the things are made of). The natural world would mean all matter and energy, including the behavior the matter and energy exhibits.

The hypothetical proposition is the natural world did not always exist. In other words, there was state of affairs where there was no natural world. Now there is a state of affairs where there is a natural world (planets, gravity, stars, etc.) and we're living in it.

And my question is what, if anything, can be inferred from this hypothetical proposition?

Thank you.

That is a question that physicists may eventually answer but forum dwellers and philosophers never will.

(January 28, 2017 at 8:34 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 8:32 pm)Gestas Wrote: A valid answer, but boring.

Atheists could say "I don't know" about the question "Do deities exist?", but they instead choose to answer, "no" or "probably not" based on logic and contemporary evidence.

That's what I'm asking for now. I'm asking for everyone here to use logic and contemporary evidence to answer the question found in my original post. But if you still want to say "I don't know", then that's fine too.

Intellectual honesty is more important to me than excitement. I'm not going to make things up just to add interesting content to an answer. That's how we get woo.

You're free to say you don't know, but I guess I find it peculiar that you pick now to say "I don't know". Technically, you could say you don't know for every question. Is there anything that anyone can know with 100% certainty? I presume that's what you mean by saying "I don't know". Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think there are many atheists who would say they're 100% certain that gods do not exist, yet, they're atheists. Because they don't need to show that they're 100% certain. They just need to show that atheism is more plausible.

Likewise, I'm just asking for what you think the most plausible answer is to the question found in my original post. But if you still want to say "I don't know" then that's fine too.

Matter and energy have always existed in our universe, in one shape or another. Sometimes those shapes take the form of planets, where at least one has life on it. Eventually those planets will be reduced back to energy once more. This almost sounds like the question of how you get something from nothing. Except there's never been literally nothing, so the point is kind of moot.

You forgot to define "exist".

My response is "I don't know - yet". I depend on what much smarter people tell me, you may want to wait for their answers. Can you tell me what existed before time? My guess/gut feeling is that at some point the "world" as we know it did not exist or existed differently. 

What do you want to be inferred from this hypothetical proposition? What do you think the potential answers are?

BTW, you don't sound 13.

BTW2, I don't need an answer to your query to not believe in a man made fantasy delusion.

Edit: I'm close to 100% certain that you are not a 13 year old girl. Your response?

I'm also of the opinion that matter and energy, or at least the raw materials for them, have always existed in some form -- even prior to the formation of the current universe.

(January 28, 2017 at 8:39 pm)Gestas Wrote: You're free to say you don't know, but I guess I find it peculiar that you pick now to say "I don't know". Technically, you could say you don't know for every question. Is there anything that anyone can know with 100% certainty? I presume that's what you mean by saying "I don't know". Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think there are many atheists who would say they're 100% certain that gods do not exist, yet, they're atheists. Because they don't need to show that they're 100% certain. They just need to show that atheism is more plausible.

Likewise, I'm just asking for what you think the most plausible answer is to the question found in my original post. But if you still want to say "I don't know" then that's fine too.

What do me mean by "atheism is more plausible"? Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. You don't even have to actively believe that a god does not exist. There's a difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism. One takes it a step further by making a positive claim in the nonexistence of gods, but that doesn't describe all atheists.

I don't have to make a statement about anything being more plausible. I can doubt all claims. That's why "I don't know" is a great answer. If I don't know, then I'm not going to pretend to know.