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.

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!

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

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