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

by dhw, Friday, September 17, 2021, 13:24 (951 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] you wrote: “there is no before before the BB. Time didn’t exist. This was proven by Guth, Borde and Valenkin by mathematics years ago, presented by my books and here.”

dhw: Do you or do you not believe that it is POSSIBLE that your God may have created BBs before ours? If you think it is possible, then you do not believe that Guth & Co have proven that there was no ‘Before’ before our BB, and that time started with our BB.

DAVID: More confusion. Is the time you imagine before our BB the same time as our time? Past imagined times might have different qualities as long as we are imagining. What Guth says is prior to our BB time did not exist. He never discussed possible prior BB's as we do.

You have agreed that time is a sequence of before-during-after. What other “qualities” do you now wish to add to our agreed definition? And of course Guth never discussed possible prior BBs. That is why, in your eyes, he has NOT proven that time didn’t exist before our BB!

dhw: Your God’s eternalness tells us that there must have been something before our BB. According to you, Guth tells us there was no “before before the BB”. You disagree with him.

DAVID: By definition, if not yours, God is eternal and timeless because He doesn't change. When God created our BB He created time because what He creates changes.

And if he created BBs before ours, which you regard as possible, then time existed before our BB, and so you do not accept that Guth has proven that time did not exist before our BB.

DAVID: Those imagined sequences we have discussed are timeless…

dhw: If time exists in BBs, imagined BBs can’t be timeless (i.e. without time!).

DAVID: I never said that. Each imagined BB contains its time.

And therefore time may have existed before our BB, and so you disagree with Guth!

DAVID: It is your confused disagreement, not mine. Guth's only point is time started with our BB. Reviewers of his article use it to say our BB came from nothing!!!

If there was “no before before the BB”, there must have been nothing before the BB. And you do not accept that Guth & Co have proven that there was “no before before the BB”, and that there was no time before our BB, because you agree that your God might have created earlier time-containing BBs before our BB. Please stop pretending you agree that Guth has proven his point when you manifestly disagree with his point.