Our reality being natural-enternal is a perfectly reasonable possibility, but one which we can't as yet verify. I don't see the point in jumping to conclusions. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier in the thread, about using arguments without evidence. You can scream at the box all you like, but you can't tell it what it contains.

(January 29, 2017 at 12:23 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 29, 2017 at 12:16 pm)Gestas Wrote: But isn't that what everyone does? Lol.

If something isn't worth responding to, then people typically don't respond.

Not everyone does it as rudely as you do.

She seems like a rude person herself though. I thought her and I were entering into some kind of rude contractual agreement where we'll be as rude as possible to each other for no reason.

Quote:I certainly didn't say anything about there being anything wrong with a past-eternal natural world; I said that's the most logical answer an atheist can give.

And again...as Stim already mentioned, atheists aren't obligated to provide an alternative answer to god. There is no burden of proof for atheism. So, again, what's your point? What's your problem with an atheist answering, "I don't know" to your question?

Quote:No, I'm making a point, and I see it very clearly. You may not though which, given your previous posts, doesn't surprise me. I don't think the squirrels outside of my window would be able to understand my point either.

Well, feel free to come to it whenever you're ready. [emoji57]

Quote:like the other chick better (in the black turtle neck). She's smarter, prettier, and less annoying. She was able to answer the question right away without any hassle.

Lol, I'm so sorry for laughing at you, but was that supposed to hurt?

I mean, I can see why you'd go with that particular angle of insult. I am a woman after all; the sum and total of my self-worth rests precipitously at all times upon what men think of my looks. Maybe, try to be less embarrassingly transparent in your sexism next time, eh? [emoji8]

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? You act like we haven't heard this shit a thousand times. Are you a theist? Yes, or no. If yes, which God do you believe in? Once you've answered these questions, please provide us with:

1. Evidence to support your belief that a god exists; specifically your personal brand of god, whichever it may be.

2. Once you have met your burden of proof to our satisfaction, you may present us with reasons why we should give a shit.

---

(January 28, 2017 at 8:56 pm)Gestas Wrote:

(January 28, 2017 at 8:53 pm)Jesster Wrote: I don't know

Well, let me help you out. If you're an atheist then you agree with that statement.

An atheist has no belief in god(s) or a lack of belief in god(s) because they find the proposition "deities exist" to be implausible or even impossible in light of evidence and arguments.

Wow, thank you SO much for telling me what I agree and don't agree with!

Step one for Gestas:

Understand what atheism is.

(January 29, 2017 at 12:22 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 29, 2017 at 11:19 am)Gestas Wrote: I think the most logical answer thus far has been that the natural world is past-eternal. The most logical answer an atheist can give.

Don't scientists presuppose that the universe can be rationally understood before doing science? If they don't at least do that then how can they do science? What are they looking for if not logical explanations? I can't think of anything in science that isn't logical. Hard to understand, maybe... not completely understood, sure, but illogical? Nope.

(January 29, 2017 at 12:26 pm)Gestas Wrote: She seems like a rude person herself though. I thought her and I were entering into some kind of rude contractual agreement where we'll be as rude as possible to each other for no reason.

That says more about you than anyone else. Even if she was being rude to you, you could always show her who's the more mature by not reciprocating.

(January 29, 2017 at 12:33 pm)Gestas Wrote: Don't scientists presuppose that the universe can be rationally understood before doing science? If they don't at least do that then how can they do science? What are they looking for if not logical explanations? I can't think of anything in science that isn't logical. Hard to understand, maybe... not completely understood, sure, but illogical? Nope.

That's not the same as behaving to what you think is logical. It's logical to think the Universe revolves around the Earth because that's what we observe. Doesn't make it reality.

(January 29, 2017 at 12:16 pm)Gestas Wrote:

(January 29, 2017 at 12:09 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Wow. Rude.

But isn't that what everyone does? Lol.

If something isn't worth responding to, then people typically don't respond.

---

(January 29, 2017 at 12:15 pm)robvalue Wrote: Yeah, it was futile, but that doesn't produce any conclusion at all. You're just giving an argument from ignorant. "I don't know how the natural world could have come about, therefor it didn't, and is eternal."

You're extremely rude and arrogant, and have made absolutely no points. I can't be bothered with you anymore.

Well, if there's only two possible explanations for something and only one can be true (and both can't be false or true), then all you need to do is demonstrate that one of them is futile in order to draw a conclusion.

False dichotomy. The universe doesn't have to be anything that you think it has to be.

---

(January 29, 2017 at 12:26 pm)Gestas Wrote:

(January 29, 2017 at 12:23 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Not everyone does it as rudely as you do.

She seems like a rude person herself though. I thought her and I were entering into some kind of rude contractual agreement where we'll be as rude as possible to each other for no reason.

I'm 9 months pregnant, so that sounds really fun to me actually, lol. I bet I'll win. [emoji1]

(January 29, 2017 at 12:36 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 29, 2017 at 12:33 pm)Gestas Wrote: Don't scientists presuppose that the universe can be rationally understood before doing science? If they don't at least do that then how can they do science? What are they looking for if not logical explanations? I can't think of anything in science that isn't logical. Hard to understand, maybe... not completely understood, sure, but illogical? Nope.

That's not the same as behaving to what you think is logical. It's logical to think the Universe revolves around the Earth because that's what we observe. Doesn't make it reality.

There's nothing illogical about the Earth revolving around the Sun though.

And the speed, trajectory, etc., of how the Earth revolves around the Sun is perfectly logical in that we can predict where the Earth will be in X amount of time. If it behaved in an irrational way then it'd be impossible to predict where it came from or where it will be going.

Can you give me one example of a phenomenon in science that behaves "illogically" (besides scientists themselves)? Please note that illogically is not the same as counter-intuitively or oddly.

(January 29, 2017 at 12:33 pm)Gestas Wrote:

(January 29, 2017 at 12:22 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

Don't scientists presuppose that the universe can be rationally understood before doing science? If they don't at least do that then how can they do science? What are they looking for if not logical explanations? I can't think of anything in science that isn't logical. Hard to understand, maybe... not completely understood, sure, but illogical? Nope.

Step two for Gestas:

Learn what science is.

(January 29, 2017 at 11:28 am)Gestas Wrote:

(January 29, 2017 at 6:00 am)Alex K Wrote: Not beyond what is necessary to have a sensible discussion. Now, if you don't assume time pre-existing, the words"create", "become" etc. are all devoid of meaning. If you assume time pre-existing, you assume something that to our current knowledge of physics is so inextricably interwoven with matter and has its own dynamics by virtue of General Relativity that it does not qualify as "nothing".

So assume that time is interwoven with the natural world and answer the hypothetical...

---

(January 29, 2017 at 11:24 am)Alex K Wrote: Time is not as simple as you think. You're stuck in pre 20th century notions and try to draw logical conclusions from those. That's bound to fail of course.

Not if the pre 20th century notions are correct. To say something is incorrect just because it is old is a logical fallacy. You need do better than that.


So let's start from the beginning (lul).

What is wrong with the idea that time is interwoven in the natural world?

What is wrong with the idea that time is independent of the natural world?

Yes we can know they are likely wrong, because modern physics has shown us that the old intuitive notions of a fixed linear timeline are incorrect.

If we assume time is an inseparable part of nature, your hypothetical can't be answered because of there is no time, the is no notion of "there was no natural world, and *then* there was". The sentence doesn't make sense and therefore cannot be answered.