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

by dhw, Thursday, August 19, 2021, 11:38 (979 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Time has to be created. It only exists within BB's. That is my point. Create all the sequences you wish. Not all sequences create time. Numbers seen in sequence don't create time.

We are not talking about numbers! We are talking about the sequence which you have accepted as a definition of time: before, during and after. You agreed with this definition and are now trying to squirm out of it. The only way you can squirm out of it is by coming up with a different definition. EXAMPLE of time sequence: 1st BB / after 1st BB and before 2nd BB / 2nd BB / after 2nd BB and before 3rd BB / 3rd BB etc. I am at a loss as to why you continue to accept the definition and yet pretend it does not mean what it says.