On the cosmological view

Hello.
 
After watching your discussion with Aviv Franco, an interesting point occurred to me that perhaps you could explain Aviv’s position in a more orderly manner.
 
Following the fallacy of infinite regression in claiming that everything has a reason, you said that there is a reason only for things in our experience, and therefore the singular point that is in our experience has a reason, and if that reason is not in our experience then we have solved the problem. Aviv, on the other hand, argued that perhaps we simply do not know what the reason is. You answered him, and rightly so, that if someone gives an answer and someone else does not give an answer, but says ‘maybe we do not know’, it is more likely to listen to the one who does give an explanation.
 
Well, you can look at things differently. In my opinion, there is a presupposition in your statement, according to which the singular point is something in our experience. I think there are pretty good reasons to think that it is not – it is infinitely dense, which causes its time to pass at an ‘infinite’ speed, meaning that it cannot be spoken of in terms of ‘before’ and ‘after’. Furthermore, we cannot find a reason for it in our experience. And in general, we cannot really say that it is something in our experience because we were not there when it was. From all of this, it follows that it may not be in our experience at all. Therefore, if it is not in our experience, Aviv’s argument does indeed stand – we do not know what the reason for the singular point is, since it itself is no longer in our experience.
 
Now we are faced with two possibilities – either the singular point is something we can understand, it will be answered in our experience, or it is not. If it is in our experience, then another entity, God, is needed to explain it. If it is not in our experience – God is not needed. It turns out that, according to Occam’s razor, God can be ‘cut’ out of the equation.
 
Or, in other words, Aviv indeed claims ‘I don’t know’ how a singular point exists. But even in the position of the other side that wants to offer an explanation, there is still ‘I don’t know’ how this entity God exists. Therefore, in essence, both sides do not explain the matter, but rather escape to the limits of ‘this is already something we don’t know, not in our experience.’ Aviv is modest enough to say that he does not know the singular point, while the believing side pretends to claim that he does know it, and therefore he is required to have another entity called ‘God.’
 
In fact, the cosmo-theological view can also be interpreted in the same way. But I think it’s better to interpret it through the theory of parallel universes. But that’s for another time 🙂
 
A happy and joyful Torah Giving Holiday to all the House of Israel!