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

by dhw, Thursday, September 23, 2021, 08:42 (1157 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We are imagining the possibility. [And later:] Guth is not looking at our imagined interval for a prior BB, and is not addressing past time in other previous BB's. Your objection is pointless.

dhw: The fact that neither you nor Guth considered the possibility of BBs before our own explains your error in agreeing that he had proven that there was no before and no time before our BB. Your attempt to cover up his and your failure to consider this possibility is pointless.

DAVID: A so-called error created in a theoretical discussion 15 years after the fact of my book is a foolish point.

We are not talking about an error created 15 years ago. Two months ago you wrote: "there is no before before the BB. Time did not exist. This was proven by Guth […] presented by my books and here.”

DAVID: I can alter it to fit the current constant confusion on your part. Guth's says our time started with our BB and prior to our time, time did not exist.

No he does not, according to the above quote. Of course “our” time started with our BB. But he said time itself started with our BB, and there was no time before our BB. And two months ago you told me: “The problem you are not seeing is, there is no before before the BB. Time didn’t exist. This was proven by Guth" etc. etc.

dhw: Do you or do you not accept the possibility that your God created BBs before our own? If it is possible, do you or do you not agree that it is therefore possible that time existed before our BB? Please give a direct answer.

DAVID: Following our thought that prior BB's might have occurred, yes time existed in each of them.

End of discussion. Instead of “there was no time before our BB”, you now believe that prior BBs might have occurred, and so time would have existed in them. Your acceptance of “before-during-after” as a definition of time automatically confirms that if there was a series of BBs, there was a sequence of before-during-after (= time) between as well as within BBs, but in any case that is irrelevant to your current rejection of your earlier statement that Guth had proven time didn’t exist before our BB. The “so-called error” was an error, so why don’t we leave it at that?