A question to all atheists!

[Aoi Magi]

After analyzing the hypothetical propositions in the OP, I've successfully inferred that I exist (hypothetically).

[Alex K]

My point is that the question is not sensible either way.

I'd be interested in your reasons why. Tell me why the question is not sensible assuming space-time and tell me why the question is not sensible assuming that time is independent of the natural world.

EDIT: Please don't tell me that all you had in mind was arguing over semantics...

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".

[LadyForCamus]

I love how the noob totally avoided answering the hypothetical that LFC put out there.

It's okay; I'm just one of those douche bags who compares the god concept to fairies, and Santa clause. 

Actually, Rob made my point for me in a much clearer way.  What sense is there in starting with a hypothetical, mostly philosophical assumption regarding the nature of existence that we have no way of demonstrating is even possible?  What meaningful conclusions about reality could anyone draw from that set-up?  And, why on earth does OP ask it as though he has in some sense cornered us, or exposed some perceived hypocrisy within philosophical atheism?

[Aoi Magi]

Also, OP, atheists might say "no" or "probably not" in regards to existence of god or deities because irrespective of the absurdity of those, their proponents have provided some testable claims as evidence( and which they keep rehashing from time to time) which can be used as a basis for forming opinions (all of those "evidences" however have failed and keeps failing hilariously in face of reality and scientific scrutiny), but in you entirely hypothetical scenario there is no testable property or claim to base an opinion on.

[LadyForCamus]

Right. Unless he is asserting that his hypothetical in the OP is true, then it's not actually a claim, and no one should feel obligated to draw any kind of conclusion regarding its likelihood.

---

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.

Does a juror vote guilty/innocent?  Or simply, guilty/not guilty?  If the prosecution fails to put forth a convincing, evidentially supported case, that doesn't mean that I, as a juror, necessarily believe the defendant is innocent.  It just means I haven't been presented with enough evidence to convince me he's guilty.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hard to imagine a more loaded question.

Boru

[Cyberman]

Does a juror vote guilty/innocent?  Or simply, guilty/not guilty?  If the prosecution fails to put forth a convincing, evidentially supported case, that doesn't mean that I, as a juror, necessarily believe the defendant is innocent.  It just means I haven't been presented with enough evidence to convince me he's guilty.

The jury is also not required to propose an alternative suspect. They assess the case presented until it either passes or fails, in which latter event the trial is over until the next defendant is brought in. It's not "if Tom didn't do it then it must have been Jerry"; both Tom and Jerry are judged separately.

[Gestas]

I love how the noob totally avoided answering the hypothetical that LFC put out there.

She didn't say anything interesting so I didn't respond.

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.

The rest of your answers have been hilarious though.

[Alex K]

I love how the noob totally avoided answering the hypothetical that LFC put out there.

She didn't say anything interesting so I didn't respond.

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.

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.

[Gestas]

I'd be interested in your reasons why. Tell me why the question is not sensible assuming space-time and tell me why the question is not sensible assuming that time is independent of the natural world.

EDIT: Please don't tell me that all you had in mind was arguing over semantics...

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...

---

She didn't say anything interesting so I didn't respond.

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.

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?