A question to all atheists!

[Gestas]

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.

I simplified my argument even further for you and you still don't understand it? Seriously?

I find the circle-jerking, patting each other on the back, and sniffing each other's farts amusing, despite the fact that not a single person here has been able to rebut my argument for an eternal natural world. I shouldn't be surprised though. What else can you guys do? Learn? Admit that you're wrong? Lol.

I accomplished my mission. I wanted to see what kind of logically incoherent drivel you guys could come up with in order to avoid an eternal natural world.

My recommendation to all of you is to read a basic book on logic or to take a Philosophy 101 class to supplement your PhD in searching for shit on Google, as opposed to pretending to be a physicist on an atheist forum that 20 people know about.

[robvalue]

The dogma runs deep with this one.

She's managed to make herself feel better about her own beliefs by parading around a load of malformed questions and logical fallacies. Maybe we've planted some seeds which may grow, in later years, into some humility and self-reflection. I would be very sad if she spent the rest of her life with this attitude.

I'll stop beating up on her now.

[Jesster]

[Gestas]

The dogma runs deep with this one.

She's managed to make herself feel better about her own beliefs by parading around a load of malformed questions and logical fallacies. Maybe we've planted some seeds which may grow, in later years, into some humility and self-reflection. I would be very sad if she spent the rest of her life with this attitude.

I'll stop beating up on her now.

I just think you guys are stupid, but don't realize it.

Instead of claiming my question is malformed. Show that it is malformed.

Instead of claiming I've committed logical fallacies. Show that I've committed logical fallacies.

Shit or get off the pot.

---

---

You should rename your videos to, "Just aspie things".

Lol.

[pocaracas]

A possible world is a maximum description of reality that is logically coherent (at the very least). And all I'm saying is I don't see any logical inconsistency with a possible world where the natural world does not exist. And if you're a person who thinks time is part of the natural world, then this possible world would also be timeless. If you think such a possible world could produce a natural world then I'm all ears. I don't see how it could.

It's not our problem that you can't see it.
I can't fathom it either...
Specially since you're using the wrong words (as if there are right words for it)
"Produce" denotes a measure of time, so you're assuming time in timelessness... Which can't work.

Also, I cannot even begin to think about what a timeless state of affairs could be... What its properties could be.

There would be no matter, energy, or time. That's what I mean by "timeless state of affairs with zero potentiality".

Like I said above, I wouldn't know.
According to our physics, energy, matter and time are required for anything to happen...
But who said our physics and intuition are required to operate out of our universe (whatever out may mean here)?

And if it's impossible for such a possible world to produce a natural world, then that means we can conclude that the natural world that exists in the actual world has always existed.

This is the main part that illustrates how you don't understand the problem.
"Always" implies time.
If time has an objective point of origin, "always" can only stretch backwards up to that point.
So yes, the natural world has always existed, even with a past finite existence.

So, if you're an atheist, it'd be rational for you to believe that the natural world is eternal.

No, a past infinite is not required, though it does help with our own thought process.
An extra-universal multi-dimensional time (whatever that is out of a mathematical context) could solve certain difficulties, while also rendering our concept of "Always" useless beyond the our-time origin event.

[Gestas]

A possible world is a maximum description of reality that is logically coherent (at the very least). And all I'm saying is I don't see any logical inconsistency with a possible world where the natural world does not exist. And if you're a person who thinks time is part of the natural world, then this possible world would also be timeless. If you think such a possible world could produce a natural world then I'm all ears. I don't see how it could.

It's not our problem that you can't see it.
I can't fathom it either...
Specially since you're using the wrong words (as if there are right words for it)
"Produce" denotes a measure of time, so you're assuming time in timelessness... Which can't work.

Also, I cannot even begin to think about what a timeless state of affairs could be... What its properties could be.

There would be no matter, energy, or time. That's what I mean by "timeless state of affairs with zero potentiality".

Like I said above, I wouldn't know.
According to our physics, energy, matter and time are required for anything to happen...
But who said our physics and intuition are required to operate out of our universe (whatever out may mean here)?

And if it's impossible for such a possible world to produce a natural world, then that means we can conclude that the natural world that exists in the actual world has always existed.

This is the main part that illustrates how you don't understand the problem.
"Always" implies time.
If time has an objective point of origin, "always"  can only stretch backwards up to that point.
So yes, the natural world has always existed, even with a past finite existence.

So, if you're an atheist, it'd be rational for you to believe that the natural world is eternal.

No, a past infinite is not required, though it does help with our own thought process.
An extra-universal multi-dimensional time (whatever that is out of a mathematical context) could solve certain difficulties, while also rendering our concept of "Always" useless beyond the our-time origin event.

A new person who doesn't know what they're talking about enters the fray...

[pocaracas]

Look back, pay attention.
The new person was around yesterday...

[Gestas]

Look back, pay attention.
The new person was around yesterday...

Well, either way, you don't know what you're talking about and you're just as stupid as the previous posters. For example, you wrote, 

"Produce' denotes a measure of time, so you're assuming time in timelessness... Which can't work."

That's the point, dumbass. Seriously? Did you not read the part where I wrote that I don't know how that'd work and that I'm all ears if somebody could explain it to me? But your response implies that I said the opposite: that I think it makes sense for a possible world containing no natural world (and no time) to produce a natural world, despite the fact that I explicitly said that doesn't make sense. In fact, that's part of my argument. It's because that doesn't make sense that I think we live in a possible world where that didn't happen. 

And your entire response is like this, filled with misconstruals and irrationality. It's like watching a bird repeatedly fly into a sliding glass door. Fuck.

Have any of you graduated high school? I mean what the fuck is going on, lol? Do you guys just hang around on this forum all day sniffing each other's farts?

[downbeatplumb]

If time and space do not exist then there is no time or place for anything at all. The words natural and unnatural add nothing to this either way. If there is nothing there is nothing.

[Alex K]

@Gestas

Have you ever entertained the possibility that it might be you who is lacking understanding?