A question to all atheists!

[Alex K]

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...

---

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?

Yes we can know they are likely wrong, because modern physics has shown us that the old intuitive notions of a fixed linear timeline are incorrect.

If we assume time is an inseparable part of nature, your hypothetical can't be answered because of there is no time, the is no notion of "there was no natural world, and *then* there was". The sentence doesn't make sense and therefore cannot be answered.