Unfortunately, Grünbaum's objection is pretty clearly a pseudo-dilemma. For he fails to consider the obvious alternative that the cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally1) with the Big Bang. Philosophical discussions of causal directionality routinely treat simultaneous causation, the question being how to distinguish A as the cause and B as the effect when these occur together at the same time [Dummett and Flew (1954); Mackie (1966); Suchting (1968-69); Brier (1974), pp. 91-98; Brand (1979)].2 Even on a mundane level, we regularly experience simultaneous causation; to borrow an example from Kant, a heavy ball's resting on a cushion being the cause of a depression in that cushion.3 Indeed, some philosophers argue that all efficient causation is simultaneous, for if the causal conditions sufficient for some event E were present prior to the time t of E's occurrence, then E would happen prior to t; similarly if the causal conditions for E were to vanish at t after having existed at tn < t, then E would not occur at t. In any case, there seems to be no conceptual difficulty in saying that the cause of the origin of the universe acted simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the origination of the universe. We should therefore say that the cause of the origin of the universe is causally prior to the Big Bang, though not temporally prior to the Big Bang. In such a case, the cause may be said to exist spacelessly and timelessly sans the universe, but temporally subsequent to the moment of creation
Read more:
Creation and Big Bang Cosmology | Reasonable Faith
So much assertion, so little evidence. Philosophy, from non scientists shoved into the quantum sphere where it doesn't apply.
Their thoughts on cause and effect are thought provoking and possibly valid in the macroscopic world.
Well, that is an absurd statement to make. You do not know that. Indeed, as far as science can comprehend the singularity is nothing for it has no space, mass, time or energy so it is nothing, however, nothing could very well be something, we just do not know. That it is the smallest divisible regression does not follow that it is a sub-automic particle.
Please show me the source that is telling you singularities have no time, energy, mass or volume.
also, make sure to note the difference between mass and total mass.
I'll agree singularities are thought of as point effects, (no volume) but then are usually said to have infinite mass, zero total mass, and infinite energy, if remember correctly. But I'll check your source, as I could very well be wrong.
As to whether it's a sub atomic particle, is particle the word I used?
Are you stating here that a singularity is larger than sub atomic? While simultaneously calling it a zero volume structures????
That is not true. How can you say it is not necessary if it does not even function at a quantum sub-automic level. It just does not happen, therefore, it is irrelevant.
Explain how it us not true.
I said cause and effect are not necessary, not that it doesn't happen.
Newtonian physics don't apply to the quantum level.
There are still examples of cause and effect, there are examples of causeless effects. The "Laws" are no longer laws...
Newton's law cannot operate before t=0, however, they can at, and after t=0
Define t=0. Precisely. How many minutes/second/pico second after the expansion do you consider time 0, and how are you determining what laws of physics do, and don't apply at that time?
Where are you getting any of this from??
