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

by dhw, Friday, August 06, 2021, 11:35 (1205 days ago) @ David Turell

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?

DAVID: Atheists off the point.

Not if you’re going to tell us that you believe their theory because it satisfies them and others.

DAVID: 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.

But you disagree, because you believe there was pure conscious energy before our universe appeared, and you agree that it is perfectly possible that this conscious energy may have produced other universes. So you and I agree that current scientific thought has no more access to the truth than our own theory that nothing can come from nothing, and there must have been something that preceded our universe.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: 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 exists in our experiences, no more.

If we both agree that time is a sequence and there may have been an eternity of sequences, then we agree that time could have existed before our own series of sequences. There is no “illusion” – this whole discussion is based on theories concerning what cannot be known. One theory is that the BB came from nothing, and so there could not have been any sequences (= time) before the BB. Another theory is that nothing can come from nothing, and so there could have been any number of sequences (= time) before the BB. Both theories are based on our experience of time within our universe, so why should that make you believe one theory and reject the other? In actual fact, you really do believe in my theory, because you believe in a something that existed before the BB and may well have created lots of sequences. So why do you continue to argue against your own theory?