A question to all atheists!

[Gestas]

I still don't get her angle here.  Even if some atheist were to say, "sure, I believe the space-time continuum of this natural world is past-eternal", what exactly does she think this demonstrates about god?  Or about atheism?  I don't see what the, "a-ha!" moment is supposed to be about?  [emoji848]

Why are you so obsessed about god(s)? The hypothetical had nothing to do with god(s). I never even said I was a theist. You silly fucking woman. Go bake me some cookies.

[brewer]

I still don't get her angle here.  Even if some atheist were to say, "sure, I believe the space-time continuum of this natural world is past-eternal", what exactly does she think this demonstrates about god?  Or about atheism?  I don't see what the, "a-ha!" moment is supposed to be about?  [emoji848]

Is the gotcha, OK you believe it now "prove it"? Oh you can't, well then miss barely teen does not have to prove god either. Level playing field, belief for belief.

[pocaracas]

Words are important.
What Alex was trying to tell you is that the words you use are indicative of how you think... And how you think inherently requires the presence of time.
You (and most of us) cannot think about the absence of time.
When you say something like "time is a part of the universe, so what was there before the universe?", you are taking nonsense...
There is no "before" if there is no time.
There is no action if there is no time. All our verbs rely on the existence of time, so you can't apply any action to the state of timelessness.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Word of advice to newbies (not naming any names): When it comes to cosmology - theoretical or practical - I don't recommend fucking with pocaracas or Alex. It won't end well for you.

Boru

[Gestas]

Word of advice to newbies (not naming any names):  When it comes to cosmology - theoretical or practical - I don't recommend fucking with pocaracas or Alex.  It won't end well for you.

Boru

But he couldn't rebut anything I wrote.

And no amount of cheerleading will change that.

[LadyForCamus]

I still don't get her angle here.  Even if some atheist were to say, "sure, I believe the space-time continuum of this natural world is past-eternal", what exactly does she think this demonstrates about god?  Or about atheism?  I don't see what the, "a-ha!" moment is supposed to be about?  [emoji848]

Why are you so obsessed about god(s)? The hypothetical had nothing to do with god(s). I never even said I was a theist. You silly fucking woman. Go bake me some cookies.

Lol, do you honestly think this is our first time around the block with the likes of you? Of course it's about the existence of god. Why else would you be whining on and on about what atheists must believe, or agree with?

Are you a theist? Yes or no? I asked you this question pages ago and you ignored it, so don't whine about being straw-manned after the fact if you refuse to state your position.

Also, I suck at baking. Will Freihofer's do? [emoji6]

[ignoramus]

But I have a degree in food preparation!? Surely I'm qualified to answer the universe's deepest mysteries?
But I digress, I have a special book which gives me all the answers I need... Sadly, this gives me an unfair advantage..

Too bad, so sad...

[LadyForCamus]

Word of advice to newbies (not naming any names):  When it comes to cosmology - theoretical or practical - I don't recommend fucking with pocaracas or Alex.  It won't end well for you.

Boru

But he couldn't rebut anything I wrote.

And no amount of cheerleading will change that.

No...his point was that what you're asking, in the manner you are asking it, is nonsensical.  There is no such thing as, "before" time began.   "Before" implies a timeline; a series of events.  As in...there was a "state of affairs when" there was no time, "and then" time began. That doesn't make sense.  Where do you plot the point of timelessness on the timeline of before and after the beginning of time?  

You haven't offered anything for him to rebut.  Your question is poorly formed.   You just don't understand why, lol.

[Gestas]

But he couldn't rebut anything I wrote.

And no amount of cheerleading will change that.

No...his point was that what you're asking, in the manner you are asking it, is nonsensical.  There is no such thing as, "before" time began.   "Before" implies a timeline.  As in...there was a "state of affairs when" there was no time, "and then" time began.  That doesn't make sense.  Where do you plot the point of timelessness on the timeline of before and after the beginning of time?  

You haven't offered anything for him to rebut.  Your question is poorly formed.   You just don't understand why, lol.

All he’s doing is avoiding the crux of the hypothetical by arguing over semantics, which is why I switched over to possible world semantics and his response to that was “haha”.
 
I’ll repeat what I wrote earlier. Imagine a possible world where no natural world (including time if you assume time is intertwined with the natural world) existed. In this possible world could a natural world be produced? My answer is no. If your answer is yes, then please explain to me how a timeless state of affairs with zero potentiality would produce a natural world.
 
Now, we live in a possible world (the actual world) where there is a natural world and time. Therefore, we can conclude that the natural world and time always existed.
 
If you can’t follow this logic then you’re either dumb or don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, physicist or not.
 
By the way, this is what I’ve been saying from the beginning, but I had to rephrase it in this way because Alex kept going back to semantics because he’s not intelligent enough to rebut the heart of what is being discussed here.

[LadyForCamus]

No...his point was that what you're asking, in the manner you are asking it, is nonsensical.  There is no such thing as, "before" time began.   "Before" implies a timeline.  As in...there was a "state of affairs when" there was no time, "and then" time began.  That doesn't make sense.  Where do you plot the point of timelessness on the timeline of before and after the beginning of time?  

You haven't offered anything for him to rebut.  Your question is poorly formed.   You just don't understand why, lol.

All he’s doing is avoiding the crux of the hypothetical by arguing over semantics, which is why I switched over to possible world semantics and his response to that was “haha”.
 
I’ll repeat what I wrote earlier. Imagine a possible world where no natural world (including time if you assume time is intertwined with the natural world) existed. In this possible world could a natural world be produced? My answer is no. If your answer is yes, then please explain to me how a timeless state of affairs with zero potentiality would produce a natural world.
 
Now, we live in a possible world (the actual world) where there is a natural world and time. Therefore, we can conclude that the natural world and time always existed.
 
If you can’t follow this logic then you’re either dumb or don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, physicist or not.
 
By the way, this is what I’ve been saying from the beginning, but I had to rephrase it in this way because Alex kept going back to semantics because he’s not intelligent enough to rebut the heart of what is being discussed here.

Okay...let's try this a different way. Why don't you start by defining your terms first? Please describe, exactly, what a "timeless state of affairs with zero potentiality" is?

I am only vaguely familiar with possible worlds logic, but I can tell you this: you cannot "logic" facts about nature in and out of existence. Logical arguments are not evidence. Especially if you have no way of demonstrating any of your initial premises to be true, or even possible.

I mean...you haven't even put forth a fully formed logical argument in the first place, lol. If you have one, by all means whip it out!