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

by David Turell , Saturday, August 21, 2021, 15:57 (973 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have agreed with the point that time has to be created to exist.

dhw: This is a new form of argument: tell me I have agreed with a point I have just explicitly disagreed with! Please look at the bold: “time is a description, not a creation”. The events must exist, and the word "time" is used to describe the sequence of before-during-after the events.

So you don't think time has to be created? Our imagined discussion of a sequence of BB's is occurring in our created spacetime, isn't it. We exist in time, don't we?

DAVID: Guth et al are not abandoned. Time, called a 'before', did not exist until our BB appeared. You agree.

dhw: From the very beginning of this discussion I have DISAGREED! Because it is totally impossible for anyone to prove what did or did not exist before the BB. You yourself firmly believe that your God existed before the BB, and it is perfectly possible that he would have created lots of BBs, i.e. lots of those sequences of before-during-after which you have agreed is our definition of time.

Our definition ha been created only in our spacetime.

DAVID: Any sequence of BB's is on our imaginations but doesn't create time as we know it, between BB's.

dhw: See above for your acceptance of the possibility of BBs before our own, which means you reject Guth & Co, and please stop ignoring the obvious point that “between” BBs means after one BB and before another. You seem to be arguing for arguing’s sake, since you know perfectly well that Guth & Co cannot possibly prove that time (i.e. sequences of events) did not exist before our BB.

It is nice of you making up my real thoughts. Guth et al and I do not see time before our BB. To repeat, our imagined sequence of prior BB's is an imagined concept we have created to discuss. Time only exists within those nebulous previous BB's, not between them.