A question to all atheists!
January 29, 2017 at 11:31 pm
(This post was last modified: January 29, 2017 at 11:36 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(January 29, 2017 at 11:09 pm)Gestas Wrote:(January 29, 2017 at 10:38 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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.
Okay...let's try this a different way. Why don't you start by defining your terms first? Please describe, exactly, what a "timeless state of affairs with zero potentiality" is?
I am only vaguely familiar with possible worlds logic, but I can tell you this: you cannot "logic" facts about nature in and out of existence. Logical arguments are not evidence. Especially if you have no way of demonstrating any of your initial premises to be true, or even possible.
I mean...you haven't even put forth a fully formed logical argument in the first place, lol. If you have one, by all means whip it out!
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.