RE: A question to all atheists!
January 29, 2017 at 11:28 am
(This post was last modified: January 29, 2017 at 11:32 am by Gestas.)
(January 29, 2017 at 6:00 am)Alex K Wrote:(January 29, 2017 at 3:08 am)Gestas Wrote: I'd be interested in your reasons why. Tell me why the question is not sensible assuming space-time and tell me why the question is not sensible assuming that time is independent of the natural world.
EDIT: Please don't tell me that all you had in mind was arguing over semantics...
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...
(January 29, 2017 at 11:24 am)Alex K Wrote:(January 29, 2017 at 11:19 am)Gestas Wrote: 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.
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?
