Thus, I
will format this as a deductive syllogism.
C1.2 UU Deductive Syllogism
P1: If the
universe is caused, the A-Theory of time is true
P2: The A-Theory
of time is not true
C: The
universe is uncaused
P1: P --> Q
P2: ¬Q
C: ∴ ¬P
C from P1
and P2, Modus Tollens.
C1.2 Premise One
I assume
this premise is uncontroversial between my opponent and I. As aforementioned, the
notion of a caused universe and the
A-Series of time come hand-in-hand, as without the existence of tensed facts there is no distinction between
past, present and future.
C1.2 Premise Two
Here will
be the bulk of my argument.
C1.2.1 Prerequisites for Causation
The notion
of causation is inherently incumbent on cause and effect; where a cause precedes the effect and there exists knowledge of the distinction between the cause and
the effect. For example, without a cause preceding the effect, there is no
possible way to identify what the cause or the effect is. Hence, it can be
drawn that causality is inherently tied with the arrow of time, as the cause would
have to precede the effect by a finite amount of time [3].
Moreover,
events that occur are logically bound with metaphysical possibility or
necessity. The notion of causation requires cause
‘Y’ and effect ‘Z’. Y and Z can
only occur if they are logically possible, either contingently or necessarily
[4]. For example, ‘there exists no such cause Y, such that effect Z is the
existence of a squared circle’, since the concept of a squared circle is
metaphysically incongruent. Hence, it has been demonstrated that the coherency
of causality rests upon the adherence to existing physical/logical laws and
axioms.
Therefore,
causality is bound upon existing physical/logical laws and time’s arrow
to be coherent. Furthermore, the idea of a caused universe is ultimately incoherent, as prior to the origin of the universe,
there were neither time’s arrow nor physical/logical laws. Hence, the
prerequisites for causation to even take place didn’t exist and therefore to
talk of a caused universe is
ultimately incoherent.
Since the
A-Series of time presupposes a caused universe
(with the existence of tensed facts, the universe could not be tenseless) this
refutes the A-Series of time.
C1.2.2 B-Theory of Time
(Eternalism) – The Block Universe
Here I
argue that the B-Theory of time is far more likely to be true and that general
scientific consensus affirms such in earnest. Eternalism envisions the universe
to be tenseless, existing with one time and three spatial dimensions, where
there can be no *objective* passing of time [5] and that causation is incoherent.
This is dissimilar to Presentism, or the A-Series of time, where it is only the present that is true. The distinction can be depicted with the following
diagram:
[6]
Einstein’s
Theory of Relativity affirms the B-Theory of time and refutes the A-Theory of
time because:
I) General
relativity affirms the ontology of a 4-dimensional, block universe
II) Special
relativity holds true that the laws of physics are the same, regardless of the frame
of reference. However, observers can disagree on time-separated events (the
present) but are all equally correct.
I)
Einstein’s
Theory of General Relativity depicts a universe where time itself is an axis in
a 4-dimensional, spatial plane. The theory provides a unified description of
gravity, space-time and how gravity effects space-time. As such, it has been
shown that space-time can be curved by objects with mass as it distorts the illusory interpretation of the passage
of time. This was corroborated by the phenomenon of ‘gravitational lensing’, where it was hypothesised under the theory
of relativity that objects with mass curve the space-time around it, and that
light that follows the curved geometry will appear distorted, or ‘lensed’ to an
outside observer [7]. This was first tested during an eclipse, where the light
that can be seen around the moon would be ‘slightly shifted’ due to how the
moon’s gravitational influence would curve the spatial geometry of the path the
light is taking. The experiment was conducted by Arthur Eddington who travelled
to the island of Principe off the west coast of Africa to watch the solar
eclipse of 29 May 1919. Eddington’s observations published in 1920 confirmed
this hypothesis, thus ratifying general relativity [8]. Many other experiments
have been conducted which stipulate with these findings, including the research
of the Hubble Space Telescope, which ultimately alludes to the expansion of
space-time due to the red-shifting of distant galaxies [9].
Hence, Einstein’s
Theory of General Relativity provides cumbersome evidence for the ontology of
our universe to be ‘block-like’, where the past, present and future are all
equally real as it postulates time to be a distinct dimension. Such a universe
renders the A-Series of time false.
II)
Einstein’s
Theory of Special Relativity posits that absolute simultaneity is false and
that relative simultaneity is true
[10]. To give this context, any observer will have a frame of reference. Let’s say
events ‘X & Y’ occurs, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that
two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in
space. A more layman’s example is this,
“a car crash in London and another
in New York appearing to happen at the same time to an observer on Earth, will
appear to have occurred at slightly different times to an observer on an
airplane flying between London and New York” [10].
This is
due to how objects moving at a quicker, but constant velocity relative to
another object will experience time more slowly relative to the other object
[11]. Hence, what special relativity shows is that observers in different
frames of reference have different perceptions of whether or not a pair of
events happened at a specific time, with there being no definitive way to prove
whose perception has more veracity than the other. This refutes the A-Theory of
time, because it shows that there is no *objective present* as each frame of
reference perceives the present differently and are all equally correct.
This
entails Eternalism, as it alludes to the present being *illusory* and entails
that the present is intangible.
C1.2.3 Retrocausality
As aforementioned,
the notion of causality is underpinned by an arrow of time to depict that ‘cause’ precedes ‘effect’. However, retrocausality (or backwards causation) is a
concept where the ‘effect’ precedes the ‘cause’ [12]. Such a concept would
be absurd under the A-Theory of time. However, there is evidence to suggest
that such a concept is prevalent in the quantum world.
To preface
this claim, research abundantly suggests that there exists a pervasive asymmetry
in time and that this time-symmetry extends to the causal dependences at the
quantum level [12]. Price (2012) created a viable argument for retrocausality,
showing that time-symmetry directly implies retrocausality [12]. Moreover, it is further demonstrated
with quantum entanglement, which suggest that entangled particles interact with
each other retrocausally when one particle is observed and its wave function
collapses [13].
Therefore,
the block universe theory is not only congruent with Einstein’s Theory of
Relativity but also makes successful predictions in the quantum universe with
tremendous accuracy which otherwise would have been deemed absurd under the
A-Theory of time.
C1.2 Conclusion
Premise
one is fairly axiomatic so the real debate is decided with premise two, to which
I have provided a preponderance of a
posteriori evidence for. From the evidence provided, the A-Theory of time
is almost certainly false. Hence, it can be concluded that the universe is almost
certainly uncaused.
C1.3 The Universe Lacks a Need for
God
This
argument is logically presented as such:
P1: If God
exists, then the universe is caused
P2: The
universe is uncaused
C: God
does not exist
P1: P --> Q
P2: ¬Q
C: ∴ ¬P
C from P1
and P2, Modus Tollens.
C1.3 Premise One
This is
true per the definition of God in the debate description. God would act as an effective Aristotlian cause.
C1.3 Premise Two
The
veracity of this premise is upheld with C1.2.
C1.3 Conclusion
Hence, the
conclusion logically follows and the resolution is successfully negated.
C2. Occam’s Razor
This is a form of ontological parisomony which deems a competing theory a priori most likely if that theory has less ontological
commitments than the other theory. [14] If two theories X and Y have the same
ontological commitments, but X is ontologically commited to Z and Y is not, it
would deem Y as more parsimonious than X.
Thus, my argument is frameworked by Theism versus Metaphysical
Naturalism. Metaphysical Naturalism has two ontological commitments:
the physical universe and the laws that govern the universe. Whereas Theism
has three ontological commitments: the physical universe, the laws that govern
the universe and God.
Hence, the theory sans the inclusion
of God is deemed a priori most likely.
Thus, the resolution is negated as the contrapositive would dictate if
the theory not including God is likely, then it would logically entail that the
theory including God is unlikely.
Conclusion
I have provided two arguments: Occam’s Razor and the argument for an un-caused
universe. Both successfully nullify the resolution. Per the debate format, I will refrain from rebutting my opponent's opening arguments until round 2. I look forward to a great debate. Over to Con.
References
[2] The
Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp.
183-184
[5]
Tim Maudlin (2010), "On the Passing of
Time",
The Metaphysics Within Physics[8] Dyson, F.W.; Eddington, A.S.; Davidson, C.R. (1920). "A
Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from
Observations Made at the Solar eclipse of May 29, 1919"
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✔ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason: PRO forfeits three of four rounds
Essence I suppose.
what proof is there to suggest an omnibenevolent being? even the God of the bible is cited as Hating the wicked. psalm 5:5 and david, a man after God's own heart quoted psalm 139:19-22
Just had the same problem -- didn't even realise it didn't include my diagram :(
I really need to do a better job at editing once I copy and paste from my word doc. Ugh.