A question to all atheists!

[LadyForCamus]

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...

---

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?

Who said there is? And who said there is anything wrong with the idea of a past-eternal natural world?

My point is, you are failing miserably at making any point at all. You aren't going to pigeon-hole anyone here into making a positive claim on the nature of existence that is not supported by evidence.

Your question is meaningless, and I don't think you understand what atheism is. Feel free to try again, though.

[Gestas]

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

---

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?

Who said there is?  And who said there is anything wrong with the idea of a past-eternal natural world?  

My point is, you are failing miserably at making any point at all.  You aren't going to pigeon-hole anyone here into making a positive claim on the nature of existence that is not supported by evidence.

Your question is meaningless, and I don't think you understand what atheism is.  Feel free to try again, though.

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. But when I said that, your friend told me I'm basing that on pre 20th century ideas.

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.

I 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.

[robvalue]

That isn't a logical answer to your question, because your question assumes the natural past is not eternal; or at least not all-encompassing.

[Gestas]

That isn't a logical answer to your question, because your question assumes the natural past is not eternal; or at least not all-encompassing.

Some people were able to figure out that the hypothetical is an exercise in futility and that atheists should embrace the idea that the natural world is past-eternal. A few people figured it out very quickly, including that hot woman in the black turtle neck.

I just wanted to see some of the funny answers you guys would give in an effort to escape the inevitable.

[Cyberman]

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.

Wow. Rude.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

But you worded your hypothetical in such a way as to preclude that answer. You proposed that the hypothetical world did not always exist, and they asked for conclusions to be drawn from that.

When answering a hypothetical, it isn't customary for the respondents to add provisos of their own.

So...have you stopped beating your wife?

Boru

[robvalue]

That isn't a logical answer to your question, because your question assumes the natural past is not eternal; or at least not all-encompassing.

Some people were able to figure out that the hypothetical is an exercise in futility and that atheists should embrace the idea that the natural world is past-eternal. A few people figured it out very quickly, including that hot woman in the black turtle neck.

I just wanted to see some of the funny answers you guys would give in an effort to escape the inevitable.

Yeah, it was futile, but that doesn't produce any conclusion at all. You're just giving an argument from ignorance. "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.

[Gestas]

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

Wow. Rude.

But isn't that what everyone does? Lol.

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

---

Some people were able to figure out that the hypothetical is an exercise in futility and that atheists should embrace the idea that the natural world is past-eternal. A few people figured it out very quickly, including that hot woman in the black turtle neck.

I just wanted to see some of the funny answers you guys would give in an effort to escape the inevitable.

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.

[Cyberman]

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.

[Cyberman]

Wow. Rude.

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.