A far more "literalist" approach to a scientific theory like the Big Bang, which can only be correctly interpreted in a literal sense?
No, a far more "literalist" approach to such subjective issues as "existence" and "time." You seem to quite literally equate "time" with nothing else but "time space." That wasn't the way I was using the word.
I am correctly
using the word. You are not.
If you are going to define "time" as only quantifying what can be said to have existed within the confines of the "space time continuum" which was created alongside the universe during the Big Bang, then you are of course correct. Nothing can exist "in time"(as you seem to define the word) which predates the Big Bang, and therefore, there was never a "time" when the physical universe "did not exist." Afterall, "space time" is dependent on the physical universe for its own existence. However, this wasn't the meaning of either word I was using.
In other words, you are manufacturing your own undefined made-up cosmology as you go along, ignoring the real one, and trying to pretend that this bullshit is acceptable because you don't know anything.
First off, "Cosmology" wasn't even on my mind when I started here, so you can just go ahead and drop that idea completely. When I say "time," I mean "time" in the layman's sense of the word.
Fuck you. We're talking about cosmology whether you admit it or not. This is like someone saying that he wants to discuss mathematics but he wants to use his own made-up definitions of numbers and operations.
Likewise, when I make reference to the "universe," I do not mean only what was created in the Big Bang, but everything which can be said to exist in its entirety. Whether or not this is technically "correct" according to the anal-retentive standards of some specialized school of scholastic inquiry is frankly inconsequential to me. I tend more towards the Liberal Arts, rather than Math/Science side of the spectrum, and as such, I deal in concepts, not exact terminology.
You're an idiot. Real concepts must
be defined precisely, or else they are useful for nothing more than vague meaningless handwaving.
Honestly, why does it seem to be the case that whenever I get into any kind of protracted debate on this forum in particular, I find out roughly halfway through the debate that myself and my opponents are either utilizing drastically different vocabularies or are simply operating on completely different levels? It is rather frustrating.
Yes, we are operating on different levels. I am educated, and you are not. That is why you do not know how to have a proper discussion. I have been correcting
your horrendous misconceptions about the nature of space, time, and existence, while you have been complaining that my corrections contradict your ignorant subjective impressions of the subject.
Explain, without relying on something as laughable as "common sense" to support your premises, as you did last time.
Once again, everything in the universe has a prerequisite cause ("event," "necessary condition," whatever).
A) According to the atheist perspective, the universe simply exists...because it does.
It exists because it has been observed to exist. Your initial premise (that existence itself requires a cause) is completely unjustified, which is why you keep repeating it a priori.
They cannot discover a "why" and so they go out of their way to either ignore this question or downplay its importance through some kind of cop out while instead focusing on the internal mechanics or "how" of the system instead.
Christians cannot answer "why" either. Why does God exist?
B) The alternative viewpoint, which has largely fallen out of "vogue" in our modern day and age, holds that there must have been some force behind the creation of the universe, and this might have possibly been a "God" of sorts.
This viewpoint is self-contradictory. You are saying that everything
requires a cause, even existence itself, then you make a blatant exception for God. I say that existence itself does not
require a cause, and no special exceptions are required. That is why I took pains to point out to you that what you think of as your personal existence is not the actual existence of your mass/energy, but rather, its current configuration
. My position is consistent. Yours is not.
Neither explanation works well from a philosophical point of view. "How" so far has of yet to answer "why," and it shows no signs of rectifying this fundamental failing any time soon. Whereas the second option presents a whole plethera of problems of which I am sure that you are well aware.
Bullshit. The first option is superior in every way.