RE: God is so quiet
February 12, 2018 at 1:44 pm
(This post was last modified: February 12, 2018 at 2:27 pm by SteveII.)
(February 12, 2018 at 12:55 pm)pocaracas Wrote:(February 12, 2018 at 10:20 am)SteveII Wrote: I don't think so. Cosmologist do not consider space-time to have existed prior to the big bang. So the singularity (all matter in one spot) existed prior to our space-time.
Cosmologists consider that all space-time in our universe was compacted into a very small singular "location".
If any lies beyond that is unknown and no cosmologist will claim anything about it, unless under a hypothetical. Just like I'm hypothesizing that space-time (if it exists beyond our Universe) could be the origin of our Universe, the generator of that singularity.
I don't think that anyone believe spacetime to be capable of causation. It is a description or model of how all objects/forces in our universe relate to each other.
Quote:Also, note how your words undermine what you want to say -- "the singularity existed prior to our space-time". What would "prior" mean, in you hypothetical scenario in which time is non-existent? Also, what would the verbal form "existed" mean?
My mind finds it extremely difficult to think in terms of absence of time... yours seems to be similar.
The word 'prior' does not require time. It only requires a direction of causation. Spacetime is a model of how objects in this universe relate to each other. If there were no objects in this universe to relate to each other prior to the big bang, then there is no need for a model.
Quote:My hypothesis has the merit of retaining the temporal factor across the Big Bang so we can still think of causation and use our words and concepts.
I made points above why I don't think your model is tenable.
(February 12, 2018 at 1:28 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:No, my position is that God could not have failed to exists so existence of some type could not have failed to exists. I have something to ground that belief in.(February 12, 2018 at 12:07 am)SteveII Wrote: I don't think that there has to be a cause of reality. If God existed by himself from eternity past, that would still be reality.
And, if no god at all existed, that would still be reality. If reality can eternally be, without any cause, then an additional uncaused, eternal god is redundant and unnecessary. Unless ofc, you’re asserting that ‘god’ and ‘reality’, are two different words that mean the same thing?
It would be up to the atheist to explain everything without logical contradictions. Proving that possible worlds semantics must assume existence is a far cry from having an explanatory ultimate for it. You can't use logic to create existence (a concept has no causal power)--you must answer the actual question--why is there something rather than nothing. If you listen to Dean Rickles again, you will notice that he never actually answers the question posed to him. You can say that is a meaningless question, but that is really just part and parcel to admitting you are stuck with a brute fact--a fact you can't explain.