A question to all atheists!

[Assimilate]

Aliens.

Aliens?

That's just silly.

Midichlorians.

The force man, heavy stuff.

[Alex K]

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.

So do you think the natural world always existed or do you think that it didn't always exist?

You apparently aren't even aware of your implicit outdated/inconsistent assumptions - if you ask me whether I think the natural world has always existed or not, you are already assuming an eternal and linear timeline which is independent of the natural world. So, you are either begging the question or saying something inconsistent.

Please note that I'm not asking if you know. I'm asking what you think given logic and contemporary scientific evidence. Just like you don't know if gravity will be here tomorrow, but you think it will be given logic and evidence.

My position is that contemporary scientific evidence strongly suggests that your hypothetical is not a consistent question that can be answered because time, as a part of spacetime, is a dynamic object with an "ontological status" on par with the contents of the universe (matter, radiation), therefore constitutes a piece of natural world. Therefore, if time exists as we know it, the natural world exists automatically. Therefore your question is inconsistent, see my sentence above.

[Gestas]

So do you think the natural world always existed or do you think that it didn't always exist?

You apparently aren't even aware of your implicit outdated/inconsistent assumptions - if you ask me whether I think the natural world has always existed or not, you are already assuming an eternal and linear timeline which is independent of the natural world. So, you are either begging the question or saying something inconsistent.

Please note that I'm not asking if you know. I'm asking what you think given logic and contemporary scientific evidence. Just like you don't know if gravity will be here tomorrow, but you think it will be given logic and evidence.

My position is that contemporary scientific evidence strongly suggests that your hypothetical is not a consistent question that can be answered because time, as a part of spacetime, is a dynamic object with an "ontological status" on par with the contents of the universe (matter, radiation), therefore constitutes a piece of the natural world. Therefore, if time exists as we know it, the natural world exists automatically.

So if the natural world didn’t exist, then time wouldn’t exist. Which is what I’ve been saying.
 
So do you believe there was never a state of affairs where there was no natural world? If so, then you believe time, including the natural world, has always existed. Therefore, the natural world is past-eternal. Which is what I've been saying is the most logical explanation (if you're atheist).
 
If you don’t agree with the above then I don’t know what you’re saying. It sounds like you’ve been reading and listening to things that are over your head, that you don’t completely understand, and now you’re just repeating them. Sort of like how a parrot can repeat human language without knowing what it's saying.

There's also holes in the idea of time being part of the natural world, but I won't get into that. Let's just assume for the sake of discussion that time is part of the natural world so if the natural world doesn't exist, then time doesn't exist. So if the natural world has always existed, then time, along with the natural world, has always existed.

So do you believe the natural world has always existed? That there was never a state of affairs (hopefully you know what this means) where there was no natural world?

[Alex K]

So do you believe there was never a state of affairs where there was no natural world?

You keep making the same mistake.

[Joods]

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.

Translation:

She didn't say anything I was smart enough to counter and I can't admit to being wrong.

[LadyForCamus]

You apparently aren't even aware of your implicit outdated/inconsistent assumptions - if you ask me whether I think the natural world has always existed or not, you are already assuming an eternal and linear timeline which is independent of the natural world. So, you are either begging the question or saying something inconsistent.


My position is that contemporary scientific evidence strongly suggests that your hypothetical is not a consistent question that can be answered because time, as a part of spacetime, is a dynamic object with an "ontological status" on par with the contents of the universe (matter, radiation), therefore constitutes a piece of the natural world. Therefore, if time exists as we know it, the natural world exists automatically.

So if the natural world didn’t exist, then time wouldn’t exist. Which is what I’ve been saying.
 
So do you believe there was never a state of affairs where there was no natural world? If so, then you believe time, including the natural world, has always existed. Therefore, the natural world is past-eternal. Which is what I've been saying is the most logical explanation (if you're atheist).
 
If you don’t agree with the above then I don’t know what you’re saying. It sounds like you’ve been reading and listening to things that are over your head, that you don’t completely understand, and now you’re just repeating them. Sort of like how a parrot can repeat human language without knowing what it's saying.

There's also holes in the idea of time being part of the natural world, but I won't get into that. Let's just assume for the sake of discussion that time is part of the natural world so if the natural world doesn't exist, then time doesn't exist. So if the natural world has always existed, then time, along with the natural world, has always existed.

So do you believe the natural world has always existed? That there was never a state of affairs (hopefully you know what this means) where there was no natural world?

Alex is a physicist, you dolt. You're the one who is listening to explanations beyond your ability to comprehend.

[The Valkyrie]

So if the natural world didn’t exist, then time wouldn’t exist. Which is what I’ve been saying.
 
So do you believe there was never a state of affairs where there was no natural world? If so, then you believe time, including the natural world, has always existed. Therefore, the natural world is past-eternal. Which is what I've been saying is the most logical explanation (if you're atheist).
 
If you don’t agree with the above then I don’t know what you’re saying. It sounds like you’ve been reading and listening to things that are over your head, that you don’t completely understand, and now you’re just repeating them. Sort of like how a parrot can repeat human language without knowing what it's saying.

There's also holes in the idea of time being part of the natural world, but I won't get into that. Let's just assume for the sake of discussion that time is part of the natural world so if the natural world doesn't exist, then time doesn't exist. So if the natural world has always existed, then time, along with the natural world, has always existed.

So do you believe the natural world has always existed? That there was never a state of affairs (hopefully you know what this means) where there was no natural world?

Alex is a physicist, you dolt.  You're the one who is listening to explanations beyond your ability to comprehend.

And next we'll have an argument about heart surgery...

[Angrboda]

So do you believe there was never a state of affairs where there was no natural world? If so, then you believe time, including the natural world, has always existed. Therefore, the natural world is past-eternal. Which is what I've been saying is the most logical explanation (if you're atheist).

Neither the world being past eternal nor everything coming from nothing is more 'logical' than the other. Neither is postulating a necessary being any less absurd.

You've got a hatful of hair and you're trying to call it soup. Logic says nothing when all possibilities are equally absurd.

Does the universe have a boundary? What is outside that boundary? You're talking nonsense.

[Gestas]

So do you believe there was never a state of affairs where there was no natural world?

You keep making the same mistake.

I think the issue is you don't understand what you're talking about. It's sort of like when some physicists will equate "nothing" with the quantum vacuum when nothing means, nothing.

I suggest taking a Philosophy 101 course at your local college or reading a book on basic logic. Otherwise, we're just going to continue to go around in circles.

Let me try this one more time (lul). If time is tied down to the natural world, then to say the natural world doesn't exist is to say that time also does not exist; and to say the natural world exists is to say time exists. So if there was ever a state of affairs where no natural world existed, then time would also not exist. I'm asking you if believe the natural world has always existed. There's nothing invalid about this question. I think you're just slow or outside of your realm of expertise. Put another way, if there is a possible world where no natural world exists, then that possible world would also be timeless. Hopefully, you understand the concept of "possible worlds" in modal logic... So, in this possible world there would have never been a natural world (or time). Now, do you believe in such a possible world that the natural world (and time) could come into existence? If not, then you must believe that the natural world in the actual world (ours) is past-eternal. I think this is pretty basic stuff... but perhaps it's difficult to understand for somebody who never went to college or read a book on basic logic...

---

So if the natural world didn’t exist, then time wouldn’t exist. Which is what I’ve been saying.
 
So do you believe there was never a state of affairs where there was no natural world? If so, then you believe time, including the natural world, has always existed. Therefore, the natural world is past-eternal. Which is what I've been saying is the most logical explanation (if you're atheist).
 
If you don’t agree with the above then I don’t know what you’re saying. It sounds like you’ve been reading and listening to things that are over your head, that you don’t completely understand, and now you’re just repeating them. Sort of like how a parrot can repeat human language without knowing what it's saying.

There's also holes in the idea of time being part of the natural world, but I won't get into that. Let's just assume for the sake of discussion that time is part of the natural world so if the natural world doesn't exist, then time doesn't exist. So if the natural world has always existed, then time, along with the natural world, has always existed.

So do you believe the natural world has always existed? That there was never a state of affairs (hopefully you know what this means) where there was no natural world?

Alex is a physicist, you dolt.  You're the one who is listening to explanations beyond your ability to comprehend.

I think Alex is a pseudo-intellectual and I'd be very surprised if he were an actual physicist. Maybe he lied to you guys about being one? Or maybe physicists are overrated? Moreover, not every physicist has the same view on time.

[Jesster]

I think Alex is a pseudo-intellectual and I'd be very surprised if he were an actual physicist. Maybe he lied to you guys about being one? Or maybe physicists are overrated? Moreover, not every physicist has the same view on time.

Here's an interesting alternative: maybe you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. It's just something to think about.