(January 29, 2017 at 11:28 am)Gestas Wrote:(January 29, 2017 at 6:00 am)Alex K Wrote: 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: 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?
Who said there is? And who said there is anything wrong with the idea of a past-eternal natural world?
My point is, you are failing miserably at making any point at all. You aren't going to pigeon-hole anyone here into making a positive claim on the nature of existence that is not supported by evidence.
Your question is meaningless, and I don't think you understand what atheism is. Feel free to try again, though.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.