That's progress.
however, it still leaves the gap at the beginning of the cycle, singularity, no time/space, as well as the metaphysical gap of the cause of the cycle.
But the same "gap" afflicts the notion of a god. If you can assume an eternal (no beginning and no end) god, why not eternal (no beginning, no end) recycling universe?
If your god has no creator, why does the universe?
We're on the edges here of both physics and human conceptual capacity.
Thank you. So, let's just acknowledge the world exists and do the best we can to make it as pleasant as possible. Just as the ants in my back stand no rela chance to figure out why the yard exists or who I am, or why I am in the yard occasionally trying to kill them while at other time ignore them, and just as they are unlikely to know they live in a North American continent, which is part of larger reality called earth, circling around the Sun, in a galaxy called the Milky Way, a member of a group of local galaxies, in an endless space filled with innumerable galaxies, they are best off just being ants!
Or as Taoism says: "the world is the way it is even if we don't understand it." Deal it with without imaginary gods in the sky. I think the hardest thing for humans is to admit that their reasoning capacity and physical limitations simply prevent us from knowing and understanding everything there is to know and understand. It's an insults to our ego, since we declared that we are an image an likeness of God, a god-like creature.
But the same "gap" afflicts the notion of a god.
I don't believe the notion of a god enters into our discussion here. I'm discussing the question of the creation of space/time/causality and the argument that it requires a first cause outside space/time. Thus far, I've referred to it as "first cause" and "it." Within my limited capacity I envision it as a principle or law, much like physics only larger, encompassing physics, meta. Metaphysical.
If you can assume an eternal (no beginning and no end) god, why not eternal (no beginning, no end) recycling universe?
Leaving names aside, you still have the gap. Taking the current most accepted scientific model as an example, you have the Big Bang beginning, we are now after the beginning, and we're theorizing what happens next - in space/time. Under the cycle theory, we have a collapse of space/time, no space/time, then another Big Bang - another creation of space/time. Rinse and repeat.
In short we have space/time now. It exists, we exist in space/time, not eternal (outside time). There is a gap between this universe and eternal. Postulating a never-ending cycle is different than postulating eternal, they are not equal concepts. For one thing never-ending still has a beginning.
If your god has no creator, why does the universe?
Again, the argument is that the existence of space/time requires something outside space time. The First Cause argument states this in terms of causality. We can conflate time and causality (as we have often on this thread), and say the corollary: the existence of causality requires something uncaused (call it what you wish.)
This is a nutshell version of the argument.
So, let's just acknowledge the world exists and do the best we can to make it as pleasant as possible.
Now where's the fun in that? :)
"the world is the way it is even if we don't understand it."
Now why would an ant even contemplate this much?
Deal with it without imaginary gods in the sky.
I'm with you there, but I have a great deal of respect and value for the area of knowledge examined by philosophy and religion, Taoism for one example. :)
I think the hardest thing for humans is to admit that their reasoning capacity and physical limitations simply prevent us from knowing and understanding everything there is to know and understand.
Absolutely agree, but for that negative, there's the positive results of seeking, and occasionally finding, knowledge.
It's an insults to our ego, since we declared that we are an image an likeness of God, a god-like creature.
There are also downsides to reductionism and relativism.