A question to all atheists!

[Mr Greene]

Is time a applicable to nothing?

[Gestas]

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.

So you disagree with the statement "the existence of god(s) is implausible"?

[Jesster]

So you disagree with the statement "the existence of god(s) is implausible"?

I don't know

[flagbears]

That we've come a long way in scientific advancements, and this proposition has been proven, thanks to space travel, sponsored by NASA and Virgin. Climatic changes, such as global warming, has been explained by the hubble telescope's study of the sun, stars and planetary advancements ?.........

No idea.

[Gestas]

So you disagree with the statement "the existence of god(s) is implausible"?

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.

[Cyberman]

So you disagree with the statement "the existence of god(s) is implausible"?

I would say the existence of deities is unlikely, in a Universe like this one. It's what is usually offered up as evidence for them that I find implausible.

[Jesster]

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.

No, an atheist does not have to agree with that statement. Plausibility isn't what makes someone an atheist. Belief vs non-belief is the question. I do not believe in a god, but I also don't believe that there is no god. I don't have even the smallest statistic about that, so I can't say anything about the plausibility. While I find some god claims to be absurd and implausible, that does not mean I can say anything about the existence of a god in general.

[LadyForCamus]

Beats the tits outta me. What's your point?

---

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.

Why should I feel obligated to forge an explaination for your hypothetical proposition in the first place?   

I've got one for YOU: For the sake of the discussion, let's assume that instead of "nothing" there were fairies.  All of space was comprised of infinitesimal fairies.  Then, from infinitesimal fairies came the universe, the planets, and natural world as we live in it.  Please, using contemporary evidence and logic, explain what you would infer from this philosophical proposition.

In the meantime, I'll sit back smugly and act as though I've proved some kind of point.

[robvalue]

What can be inferred? Nothing. It would just be speculation without testable hypotheses.

[Alex K]

@OP In your question time is either assumed as a given independent of things existing - That doesn't seem sensible considering what we know about spacetime. Or it isn't assumed in which case the question is not well-formed.