A question to all atheists!

[robvalue]

You turn up here thinking you have all the answers. You think you know more than the greatest scientific minds in the world. It's the narrow minded arrogance of someone who hasn't yet properly learned how to think. You have actual people here who know a fuck load more than you do, and you dismiss them.

Someone who thinks they already have all the answers cannot learn anything.

Okay, so let's make the following assumption: a floaty magical thing which is timeless but can somehow act, and exists but isn't anywhere, suddenly decided it would be a swell idea to have some talking apes glued to a rock surrounded by acres of deadly atmosphere. So it non-specifically engineered a series of events so that this would happen.

Is this a reasonable starting assumption to make, before we start to even analyse reality and its origins?

Here's a couple of "atheist" explanations for you. This whole thing has nothing to do with atheism. If you want to be good at philosophy, you need to learn what words mean. [I'm not interested in your responses anymore, I'm just writing for people at home.]

1) In another reality, with its own independent timeline, a computer simulation was executed. The simulation manifested itself as our reality, in such a way as to appear to have an infinite or a finite past, as you please. The beings in the parent reality may or may not have any idea about this manifestation, or that elements of it have become self aware.

2) Magic magic soup fairies did everything. They're not gods, they are dream noodly ghost things. Not all atheists are sceptics.

[LadyForCamus]

Magic soup fairies, and ghost noodles?! Stop it, Rob; you're making me HUNGRY. ?

[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.

[robvalue]

Magic soup fairies, and ghost noodles?!  Stop it, Rob; you're making me HUNGRY.  ?

Lol sorry

This is the kind of thing that happens when I try to simulate a non-sceptic by disengaging my logic circuits!

[Angrboda]

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.

You first, princess. You assert that nothingness couldn't just be replaced by something. Got any actual support for your assertion?

[Whateverist]

"I don't know" is always a wonderful answer for these situations.

A valid answer, but boring.

Atheists could say "I don't know" about the question "Do deities exist?", but they instead choose to answer, "no" or "probably not" based on logic and contemporary evidence.

That's what I'm asking for now. I'm asking for everyone here to use logic and contemporary evidence to answer the question found in my original post. But if you still want to say "I don't know", then that's fine too.

Only just started reading the thread but I assume by now someone has enlightened you that an atheist -by definition- need not answer "no or probably not" to the "Do deities exist" - question.  Your garden variety atheist just answers no to the "Do you believe gods exist" - question.  To say more about something so poorly defined as gods is as much of an over-reach for atheists as is for theists' yes answer.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

You're saying you believe "something cannot come from nothing", yes?  And, you're attempting to prop this premise up by 'logic'ing 'absolute nothingness' into existence, because without it you wouldn't even be able to get your argument off the ground. Yes...?

I mean...that's fine if you believe that.  I'm not here to make any grand claims regarding the nature of existence.  I'm not going to tell you you're wrong.  How the hell would I know?  You're welcome to think what you want.  

The thing is, you have no way of actually demonstrating with physical evidence that absolute nothingness is even possible in the first place, so any conclusions you draw from that assertion are completely meaningless with regards to the actual world.  I'm not even convinced that human beings are fully capable of describing or conceptualizing such a thing as absolute nothingness.  

Again, logical arguments are not evidence.

And I'm still not sure what any of this has to do with God-belief, or lack thereof.

[paulpablo]

I am interested in the community's thoughts on a particular hypothetical proposition. And for the sake of this discussion nothing means nonexistent, zero potentiality, or a state of affairs where not one thing exists (regardless of what the things are made of). The natural world would mean all matter and energy, including the behavior the matter and energy exhibits.

The hypothetical proposition is the natural world did not always exist. In other words, there was state of affairs where there was no natural world. Now there is a state of affairs where there is a natural world (planets, gravity, stars, etc.) and we're living in it.

And my question is what, if anything, can be inferred from this hypothetical proposition?

Thank you.

Seems like a way of beating around the bush instead of just asking something along the lines of is there a creator/god.  Where did everything come from.


I'll stick with the boring answer of I don't know.

[Whateverist]

I am interested in the community's thoughts on a particular hypothetical proposition. And for the sake of this discussion nothing means nonexistent, zero potentiality, or a state of affairs where not one thing exists (regardless of what the things are made of). The natural world would mean all matter and energy, including the behavior the matter and energy exhibits.

The hypothetical proposition is the natural world did not always exist. In other words, there was state of affairs where there was no natural world. Now there is a state of affairs where there is a natural world (planets, gravity, stars, etc.) and we're living in it.

I doubt I will read the 100+ responses between the first page and this one.  

Can anyone tell me if the OP includes 'god' as one of the things not present in the hypothetical pure nothing?  I mean, if something is capable of bringing about the natural world it sure isn't 'nothing'.

---

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.

You first, princess.  You assert that nothingness couldn't just be replaced by something.  Got any actual support for your assertion?

Why is 'she' specifying "a possible world where no natural world existed"?  Has anyone ever observed or found evidence for any other kind of world?  If not, why would anyone suppose anything else at all exists?  I don't get it.

[Angrboda]

You first, princess.  You assert that nothingness couldn't just be replaced by something.  Got any actual support for your assertion?

Why is 'she' specifying "a possible world where no natural world existed"?  Has anyone ever observed or found evidence for any other kind of world?  If not, why would anyone suppose anything else at all exists?  I don't get it.

She's basically asserting that something cannot "come from" nothing, therefore the only naturalist's response to the question of "Why there is something" is to postulate a past eternal universe. The possible world business entered in because Alex K was quibbling about the assumptions about the nature of time included in her original hypothetical.