A question to all atheists!

[ignoramus]

The OP is just hiding God outside of time and space...
He/she is reading from " God of the Gaps for dummies "

[robvalue]

She's obviously trying to shoe-horn "God" into gaps of knowledge, but hasn't got the honesty to state her own position. She's welcome to correct me. The obviously loaded question coupled with silence leaves us assuming such an agenda.

It's an argument from ignorance/incredulity, of course. She can't imagine things being any other way, so some magic thing did it. There is no need to mention atheists, or to define "natural" so as to set up the meaningless "supernatural", to discuss this so-called scenario.

We were supposed to deduce from assuming a hypothesis is true, that it isn't true. That is absolutely absurd. Do I really need to explain why? Of course, we can use logic to demonstrate an absurdity. But no such logic has appeared, and even if it did, there is no evidence to support the over-reaching extra assumptions. Something can't come from nothing? Why, because you say so? Because you can't imagine it?

Here's my old video about the above, for her benefit, should she wish to try and learn something.

[Alex K]

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.

It is you who has demonstrated the complete inability to address anything that's said in a meaningful way or make any attempt to reflect about your own argument and assumptions. You're merely repeating the same line over and over with more insults mixed in. That could be construed aa lack of sufficient intelligence, but I rather suspect that your intellectual inflexibility stems from the fact that you are trying to follow a fixed script to a "gotcha"-moment against atheists.

[robvalue]

Naughty atheists not taking the bait.

When you have to tell people what their beliefs are to make yourself comfortable about your own beliefs, you are projecting. Take a look in the mirror.

[Alex K]

OP has probably seen a Youtube vid "The surefire way to DESTROY&pwn atheists in one argument" and attributes its failure to our noncompliance, lol.

[Amarok]

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.

It is you who has demonstrated the complete inability to  address anything that's said in a meaningful way or make any attempt to reflect about your own argument and assumptions. You're merely repeating the same line over and over with more insults mixed in. That could be construed aa lack of sufficient intelligence, but I rather suspect that your intellectual inflexibility stems from the fact that you are trying to follow a fixed script to a "gotcha"-moment against atheists.

Well of course he has to follow his apologist script Alex how else would he answer

[Alex K]

It is you who has demonstrated the complete inability to  address anything that's said in a meaningful way or make any attempt to reflect about your own argument and assumptions. You're merely repeating the same line over and over with more insults mixed in. That could be construed aa lack of sufficient intelligence, but I rather suspect that your intellectual inflexibility stems from the fact that you are trying to follow a fixed script to a "gotcha"-moment against atheists.

Well of course he has to follow his apologist script Alex how else would he answer

The unpleasant combination she employs of a fixed script + psycho tactics to discredit or silence "critics", I find a bit worrisome almost. Has a sociopathic cultist flavor.

[robvalue]

It's handy that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a pseudo-intellectual, isn't it? That's a great way to avoid having to consider any other point of view.

Science works. Science tells us reliable information about reality. Philosophy is an integral part is science. But neither work without the other. If you think philosophy is going to help you think reality into the shape you want it to be, you're mistaken. Other people on this forum have wasted years of their lives doing this.

[Amarok]

It's handy that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a pseudo-intellectual, isn't it? That's a great way to avoid having to consider any other point of view.

Science works. Science tells us reliable information about reality. Philosophy is an integral part is science. But neither work without the other. If you think philosophy is going to help you think reality into the shape you want it to be, you're mistaken.

Indeed both need integration

Science without philosophy is blind

Philosophy without science is just mental masturbation

[ignoramus]