ComestibleVenom

Tomaq, you seem to be missing the central point that everyone is making. We do not make the attempt to understand the universe relative to 'nothing'. That's totally beside the point. Atheism does not commit us to such a position, thus your attack on it's illogic have no bearing upon the issue at hand.

Just_An_Atheist

"i mean "logically prior to" in the same sense he says it. it is a tough concept to ..." This still seems to suggest that there was time as we know it, for how can you say "coming out of nothing"? It seems to suggest that there both was and there wasn't time.

"let me try an example, existence is logically prior to identity. identity has no meaning unless something exists that can possess that identity. yet there is no temporal connection between the two." One point that could be made is that there *is* a temperal connection between identity, and existence because one see's things "coming" into existence, where identity exists prior to (in the temporal sence) any specific identity, and existence is (at least within our universe) temporally after nonexistence.

thomaq

first, i dont feel like i'm attacking anything, i'm just being skeptical.

1. the universe is everything that exists at all times in all places
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore (if naturalism is true) non-existence or "nothingness" is logically prior to the universe.
what is wrong with this logic?

Autonemesis

Your said in your original post, "either the universe began to exist from nothing. or it always existed. " My point was that there are more than the two choices you presented in your original post. Quantum mechanies explains how this could be. So your dilemma is a false one.

ComestibleVenom

Please be assured that I recognize your sincerity.

Your argument is flawed in the two most basic ways that arguments go wrong. First of all, it's logically invalid. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Secondly, it begs some important questions. "Nothingness" plays no logical role in scientific theories of the early universe. Thus, your claim that it does play some incoherent role misses the point: there is no such role to be played.

In fact, theism is weaker for it's claims to have the solutions to such overarching questions. Naturalism rejects the questions themselves, realizing that human intuitions have proven pathetically inadequate to the task of understanding the physical universe.

thomaq

i asked you to explain your assertion and you havent yet.

Just_An_Atheist

I presented a potential example for a false dichotomy. (The time began with a timeless point.) You havn't responded to it. (Although it might be hard to find the link now, though.

thomaq

so you acknowledge that the two options i posted are irrational?

Just_An_Atheist

"so you acknowledge that the two options i posted are irrational?"

No, but even if they are, your dichotomy is a false one-because it doesn't consider a third option- so you're argument is invalid.

(I could hold this view, even if I think that you've failed to demonstate the irrationality of either proposition.)

thomaq

tell me more about this timeless point. it doesnt seem like it would solve anything. what possible ways could it transition from a timeless point into the universe? i'd like to hear more about it. are you referring to the quentin smith article? i need to check that out.