Cosmologic philosophy: Egnor on Big Bang, etc. (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, August 05, 2021, 22:41 (1206 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You have ignored my comment. If you accept the possibility of prior BBs, then you DO agree to a time before our BB. And why do you think a period of rest does not constitute an “after” one BB and a “before” another BB?

DAVID: Yes, but you don't pretend you know anything. So you have no answers that satisfy you.

dhw: Correct. How does that justify your pretence and that of your pet theorists that you do know something which cannot possibly be known?

dhw: You have not answered.

DAVID: I have stated Guth, Borde, and Valenkin satisfied themselves and others that time did not exist before the BB.

dhw: Well, good for them and for you if you believe that time did not exist before our BB, except for when time did exist before our BB but don’t tell Guth, Borde and Valenkin. And here’s news for you: some atheists have satisfied themselves and others that God does not exist. So what does that prove, eh?

Atheists off the point. We have only scientific thought to try to guide us to the truth about our reality. It is the most recent evidentiary presentation I can reference. It says this spacetime containing universe simply appeared from nothing.

DAVID: That time appeared with the BB is pure logic.

dhw: It is pure logic that the BB occurred in time. All events demonstrate the existence of time if you interpret time as a sequence of before-now-after. It is illogical to claim that time did not exist BEFORE the BB, because nobody can possibly know what existed BEFORE the BB.

DAVID: The BB appears to be a creation from nothing. Does nothing have time or is it timeless?

dhw: Nothing is nothing, but I was under the impression that you did NOT believe that the BB came from nothing. I thought you believed that there was a conscious form of pure energy that actually designed the BB and everything that followed. And I thought you even believed that he might have created other BBs. I really don’t understand how you can conceive of your God as nothing. Nor, in fact, can I understand why anybody should assume that a universe can come out of “nothing”. And if there was something, and the something caused new events, then by my definition, time existed before the BB. And heaven be praised, you have agreed with my definition, so why are you still arguing?

In a sense God is certainly something that I believe existed timelessly a a first cause, one which can/could create universes. The time you conceive of pre-BB is in an illusion your head taken from our human experience in time within our universe, which I agree is a series of events. Time exits in our experiences, no more.