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

by dhw, Wednesday, August 18, 2021, 12:52 (979 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are applying a human concept of time in our spacetime to our imagined previous possible 'before' our BB. It may well have been the only BB ever.

dhw: You are applying the same concept. No one can possibly prove that there were no BBs before ours, and in your case, since you believe in a God who existed before our BB and created it, you have been arguing all this time that it’s perfectly possible he created a sequence of BBs before ours. But strangely, you cannot grasp the fact that if he did, the periods in between BBs would also have been part of the sequence of before and after.

DAVID: A sequence of BB's does not create time between them!!!

dhw: We’re not talking of “creating” time – we are defining it. How can you possibly argue that if there are two events, what exists between them is not a before (the second) and after (the first)?

DAVID: Yes, but only in our spacetime.

We are talking about possible BBs during the time before our BB. Why do you think a sequence of BBs before ours would not be before ours, and would not be before and after one another in their sequence?

DAVID: I accept the/your definition within our spacetime. No time exists between our imagined series of BB's. God is timeless and only He exists between His produced BB's.

A series of non sequiturs! The time between any events is after the first and before the second. God is timeless means he is eternal, without beginning or end, and that has nothing to do with the fact that if you define time as a sequence of befores and afters, his “produced BBs” would have formed a sequence of before BBs, BBs, and after BBs. Once again: you defended Guth & Co’s argument that there was no time before our BB, and then you joined me in attacking it, and you have accepted my definition of time, but are now trying to distort the very meaning of “sequence”. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.