Frankly, remembering Hawking, I don't know how to constructively respond to such a stream of consciousness.

May you explain on steam of consciousness and how that relates to Stephen Hawking?

Now that I think about it, is it my run on sentences?

You wrote: "No matter what science comes up with, like the Big Bang, one can always ask the question, and what existed before that?"

However, if we assume that time itself has a beginning, the question of what was before the beginning of time becomes irrational, hence invalid.

Does everything, every thing, have its start?

It must, if it is to be called a thing. How could there be that which is called a thing if it did not have an instantiation belonging to it necessarily. Without regard to the pure form of the thing a priori (the thinking of it) or the experience of it a posteriori (the perceiving of it), the methodology for its attention to mind invokes its own singular dedicated temporal occassion. Neuroscience aside, of course.

While it is reasonable to suppose that which has not yet come to the attention of the mind in form or experience is at least possible and at most probable, the mind has neither legitimate rights nor means to cognize apodictically with respect to it.

However, if we assume that time itself has a beginning, the question of what was before the beginning of time becomes irrational, hence invalid — Patrick Aoun

A start of time rules out presentist models of time; it does not rule out eternalist models.

A start of time rules out presentist models of time; it does not rule out eternalist models. — Devans99

Please advance a rational argument to prove what you assert.

Please advance a rational argument to prove what you assert. — Patrick Aoun

With eternalism, past present and future all exist eternally with no need for creation or destruction, so space-time can exist eternally even though time has a start.

In addition, you can posit that the start of time was preceded by the end of time (Big Bang preceded by Big Crunch).

space-time can exist eternally even though time has a start — Devans99

How would you define "eternally" in this context? In other words, what is your definition of "eternal" or "eternity"?

How would you define "eternally" in this context? In other words, what is your definition of "eternal" or "eternity"? — Patrick Aoun

The dictionary gives two definitions of eternal:

- eternal inside time. This is presentism. Requires actual infinity to exist.
- eternal outside time. This is eternalism. Does not require infinity.

So I believe the 1st is impossible whereas the 2nd is possible.

The dictionary gives two definitions of eternal:

- eternal inside time. This is presentism. Requires actual infinity to exist.
- eternal outside time. This is eternalism. Does not require infinity.

So I believe the 1st is impossible whereas the 2nd is possible. — Devans99

Interesting. And do you know any rational explanation on how could anything be "eternal outside time"?

Interesting. And do you know any rational explanation on how could anything be "eternal outside time"? — Patrick Aoun

Besides the transcendental you prefer to discount, there are states which are considered eternal but are not bound by time at one end or the other, or both. For example, life after death, whether it actually exists or not, has nothing to do with any particular time measure at the far end, it is simply considered eternal.

Similarly, statements of a PRIORI TRUTH, again whether you consider them real or not, are eternal. Like maths. But not bound by time in any way, simply eternal. And theres things like eternal love. And thats why the definition exists in a dictionary. It may not appear entirely rational to you but humans are not known to be purely rational in their meanings.

Interesting. And do you know any rational explanation on how could anything be "eternal outside time"? — Patrick Aoun

1. Can't get something from (the philosopher's) nothing
2. So something must have permanent existence
3. Time is finite *
4. So something must have permanent existence outside of time.

* Proof via contradiction time is finite:

1. Assume time is infinite
2. So some events must have taken place infinity long ago
3. These events must have been caused by prior events
4. But thats impossible by the definition of infinity (nothing before time = -∞)
5. Contradiction; time must be finite.