A question to all atheists!

[Gestas]

So assume that time is interwoven with the natural world and answer the hypothetical...

---

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.

So do you think the natural world always existed or do you think that it didn't always exist?

Please note that I'm not asking if you know. I'm asking what you think given logic and contemporary scientific evidence. Just like you don't know if gravity will be here tomorrow, but you think it will be given logic and evidence.

[Cyberman]

That's not the same as behaving to what you think is logical. It's logical to think the Universe revolves around the Earth because that's what we observe. Doesn't make it reality.

There's nothing illogical about the Earth revolving around the Sun though.

There is from the perspective of someone who cannot observe that, which is rather akin to our current perspective with regards the origin of the Universe.

And the speed, trajectory, etc., of how the Earth revolves around the Sun is perfectly logical in that we can predict where the Earth will be in X amount of time. If it behaved in an irrational way then it'd be impossible to predict where it came from or where it will be going.

Correct. And if the Universe had an irrational beginning, it would be impossible to predict where it came from or where it will be going.

Can you give me one example of a phenomenon in science that behaves "illogically" (besides scientists themselves)? Please note that illogically is not the same as counter-intuitively or oddly.

At least you acknowledge that important distinction, but I'm not going to shoulder your burden of proof. Recall that I have never said that the Universe behaves illogically; merely that what you expect to be logical behaviour may be missing some crucial data.

[robvalue]

Ah, I get what he was trying to do. It was supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum. But it was actually just an argument from ignorance/incredulity. His task, should he choose to accept it, is to learn the difference. The former is much better suited to abstract systems, and not to extrapolating into the total unknown.

[Mr Greene]

The evidence indicates a singularity ~14 billion years ago.
However no one has been able to extrapolate beyond Planck Time (the first quantum of time) due to the lack thereof.
Even the most rudimentary background googling should have flagged that up.
The whole thread stinks of prepubescence and overuse of Lynx...

[LadyForCamus]

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.

So do you think the natural world always existed or do you think that it didn't always exist?

Please note that I'm not asking if you know. I'm asking what you think given logic and contemporary scientific evidence. Just like you don't know if gravity will be here tomorrow, but you think it will be given logic and evidence.

Again, you are presenting a false dichotomy here.  How have you determined there are only two distinct possibilities for how the natural world came about?  Where is your Nobel for narrowing down the origins of matter to "either/or"?   That is a claim which demands evidence before being considered seriously.  We don't get to put the nature of existence into a neat, orderly box just because it's convenient for US.  

 And, if matter has always existed in some state, infinitely, what does this have to do with the existence of a god?  Or atheism in general?  It seems as though you think that if an atheist believes, "matter/the universe must have always existed in some form or another," this is somehow also a comment on the existence of God.  It's not.

[Gestas]

There's nothing illogical about the Earth revolving around the Sun though.

There is from the perspective of someone who cannot observe that, which is rather akin to our current perspective with regards the origin of the Universe.

And the speed, trajectory, etc., of how the Earth revolves around the Sun is perfectly logical in that we can predict where the Earth will be in X amount of time. If it behaved in an irrational way then it'd be impossible to predict where it came from or where it will be going.

Correct. And if the Universe had an irrational beginning, it would be impossible to predict where it came from or where it will be going.

Can you give me one example of a phenomenon in science that behaves "illogically" (besides scientists themselves)? Please note that illogically is not the same as counter-intuitively or oddly.

At least you acknowledge that important distinction, but I'm not going to shoulder your burden of proof. Recall that I have never said that the Universe behaves illogically; merely that what you expect to be logical behaviour may be missing some crucial data.

Damn you're so sexy. Mmmm.

---

Ah, I get what he was trying to do. It was supposed to be a reductio ad absurdum. But it was actually just an argument from ignorance/incredulity. His task, should he choose to accept it, is to learn the difference. The former is much better suited to abstract systems, and not to extrapolating into the total unknown.

I think you  dided 1 of dem strawmans.

[Cyberman]

Damn you're so sexy. Mmmm.

I never get tired of hearing that. Thank you

[LadyForCamus]

lol, looks like he's already out of juice. That was easy.

[Gestas]

The evidence indicates a singularity ~14 billion years ago.
However no one has been able to extrapolate beyond Planck Time (the first quantum of time) due to the lack thereof.
Even the most rudimentary background googling should have flagged that up.
The whole thread stinks of prepubescence and overuse of Lynx...

If science is a methodology for observing, predicting, and understanding the natural world then what would it have to say for a state of affairs that contains no natural world?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The evidence indicates a singularity ~14 billion years ago.
However no one has been able to extrapolate beyond Planck Time (the first quantum of time) due to the lack thereof.
Even the most rudimentary background googling should have flagged that up.
The whole thread stinks of prepubescence and overuse of Lynx...

If science is a methodology for observing, predicting, and understanding the natural world then what would it have to say for a state of affairs that contains no natural world?

'Hang on just a tic...'?

Boru