Is Theism a Sound Position?


Waiting for contender's argument

The round will be automatically forfeited in:
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
-Theism: "the personal cause of our universe attributed with the 4 O's"
-Sound: X would be considered sound if and only if, X has been proven to be logically consistent, objectively true, or at very least most likely to be true given our current understanding of the universe.
*Burden of Proof*
-Pro ought to show why theism is sound (meeting the criteria provided)
-Con ought to show why theism is unsound (not meeting the criteria provided)
1. No kritiks
2. No forfeits
3. Obey the debate format
-Failure to adhere to these rules is deemed poor conduct.
R1: Con provides opening argument, Pro responds with opening argument and a rebuttal
R2: Clash (rebuttal and defence)
R3: Clash (rebuttal and defence)
R4: Con provides final defence and rebuttal with closing statements, Pro waives the right to defend and rebut but can summarise their arguments.
Round 1
I would like to thank Logicae for accepting this debate.  I’ve decided to recycle an argument from one of my previous debates, since it was left untouched and I’m pressed for time.  So, I apologize if that part of my argument seems like a banalized effort.  Anyway, let’s get into the argument!
== Negative ==


C1.Un-caused Universe (UU)
God is defined to be the source of all creation i.e the universe. Hence, I affirm that scientific consensus postulates that the notion of a caused universe is most likely sophistry. Therefore, by extension, the notion of God (the creator of the universe) is most likely sophistry.
C1.1 Overview - A-Series vs B-Series of Time
caused universe is fundamentally predicated by Presentism or a framework upholding the A-Series of time. The veracity of the A-Series of time is rooted by the veracity of “tensed facts” . A tensed fact can be described as something that is true given its “temporal perspective” [1].  For example, the statement “today, it is sunny” would be a tensed fact, given that it is has a specific tense.
Indeed, the universe can only be caused if and only if it exists as a tensed fact.   William Craig explains the prerequisites well:
“A. x begins to exist at t if and only if x comes into being at t
B.  x comes into being at t if and only if (i) x exists at t, and the actual world includes no state of affairs in which x exists timelessly, (ii) t is either the first time at which x exists or is separated from t’ < t at which x existed by an interval during which x does not exist, and (iii) x’s existing at t is a tensed fact” [2]
This idea of “tensed facts” pertains directly to the A-Series of time – the explicit difference between past, present and future.  However, the notion of something existing “tenseless” pertains to the B-Series of time – the explicit parity between past, present and future.  The B-Series of time (as a superset of Eternalism) refutes the notion of causal relationships as it affirms that the past, present and future are equally real and thus facilitates a theory of time which scientifically and logically explains the existence of an uncaused universe.
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 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 [3]. This is dissimilar to Presentism, or the A-Series of time, where it is only the present that is true.  Special Relativity posits that absolute simultaneity is false and that relative simultaneity is true [4]. 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” [5].
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 [5]. 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 actually intangible.
C1.2.2 Retrocausality
Retrocausality (or backwards causation) is a concept where the ‘effect’ precedes the ‘cause’ [6]. Such a concept would be absurd under the A-Theory of time, since the future would not exist to act as a causal agency. 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 [6]. Price (2012) created a viable argument for retrocausality, showing that time-symmetry directly implies retrocausality. Moreover, it is further demonstrated with quantum entanglement, which suggests that entangled particles interact with each other retrocausally when one particle is observed and its wave function collapses.
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 ConclusionPremise 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
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. Irrationality of preferring Theism over Metaphysical Naturalism or other beliefs of God (Occam’s Razor)
Even if we are to accept that there exists a powerful, timeless, immaterial, conscious entity that “willed” our universe into being, I assert it would be far more rational to deem the amalgamation of properties to be non-Theistic.  For example, Theism (as defined) unwarrantedly adds that this entity is the paragon of its attributes.  For example, instead of the entity being “very powerful” it is “omnipotent” – instead of the entity being “very knowledgeable” it is “omniscient” etc.  Without direct evidence of the epitome of these attributes, why are we to assume the entity possesses them?  It would be more parsimonious to assume that it is “very powerful, knowledgeable etc.” rather than being the upmost of that attribute, purely on the grounds of Occam’s Razor.

Tabula Rasa, believing that our universe as a whole is innately contingent upon divine creation from a wholly intelligent entity, rather than natural processes of emergence would be unparsimonious. It is far more simplistic and parsimonious to have stock in the position of a metaphysical naturalist, rather than a theist when direct evidence of God hasn’t been demonstrated.  

This can be refuted, provided that Pro can affirm that i) God must exist (to prefer Theism to Metaphysical Naturalism) and ii) that God must be a teleiotic rendition of its attributes (to prefer Theism over another belief of God).

C3.  Internal Inconsistencies of an Entity with the 4 Os

C3.1 Overview
Here, God will represent the personal entity attributed with the 4 Os: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipresence.    Non-cognitivism is normally demonstrated in ethics to show that moral knowledge is impossible to acquire.  It postulates that moral expressions don’t actually predicate any real properties, nor do they have truth conditions [8].  I aim to show that, specifically God’s attributes (the 4 O’s) fail to actually provide any meaningful representation of the concept “God”, nor do they predicate anything truly coherent.
C3.2 Syllogism
P1: God is internally consistent if it has a primary property
P2:God does not have a primary property
C:God is internally inconsistent

P1: P --> Q
P2: ¬Q
C:  ¬P
C from P1 and P2, Modus Tollens.
C3.2 Premise One

C3.2.1 Primary and Secondary Properties
Normally, concepts (essentially a blueprint) have properties that they instantiate in reality.  For example, the concept of an apple is, typically, a red pome fruit.  Therefore, something is an ‘apple’ in reality, if it is both ‘red’ and is a ‘pome fruit’.  This is similar to classes and instantiation in object oriented programming.
 A concept that has no real properties, is an internally inconsistent concept, for example, something “north of the north pole”, or a “squared circle”.

When we speak of a concept’s properties we tend to divide them into “primary” and “secondary” properties.  A primary property is an objective feature of the world [9].  For example, a primary property of a t-shirt would be that it is made of cotton wool.  Secondary properties are that which are ungrounded and are mindful, for example colour, temperature, mass, smell etc. [9]. 

Secondary properties (also known as B-Properties) supervene on primary properties (also known as A-properties).  For instance, temperature equates to a B-Property supervening on the A-Property that is particle vibration. B-properties change if and only if A-Properties are changed; you increase the vibration of the particles (add energy to the system), the temperature changes.

For us to talk reasonably of an entity, its primary essence ought to be described.  Secondary properties, don’t actually describe anything about an entity’s essence.  For example, to state that x is 100 degrees, the fact that it is 100 degrees doesn’t establish any primary essence of x. However, if x were water, now we have a primary essence, that is a collection of molecularly bonded hydrogen and oxygen atoms that are 100 degrees in temperature.  It is similarly akin to stating that entity x is 100 kilograms, but its mass evinces no reasonable description to what entity x actually is.

Thus, I assert a coherent concept cannot only be comprised of secondary properties.

C3.2 Premise Two

C3.2.2 God’s Properties
God’s properties in this Theistic denotation are: “omnipotence”, “omniscience”, “omnipresence”, “omnibenevolence” and “personal cause of our universe”.
I assert that none of these attributes are actually primary.  Omnipotence, is a measurement of “potency” and “ability”, but the primary essence of that attributed with omnipotence is not demonstrated by it.  Omnipotence would be a secondary property to an entity x, but similar to how “100 degrees” isn’t an individual entity in and of itself; it is a secondary property of said entity. The same can be applied to each an every one of God’s properties.
Without a primary property, there is nothing meaningful that can be said about the concept.  Similarly, I can’t talk much of a “squared circle”, because its nature is incomprehensible.  However, a concept like a car would be described as “a metal/plastic mass, suspended by four rubber wheels, with an engine”.  These would be primary properties which could also have secondary properties, like the fact that it could be 1000kg and a red car. 
C3.2 Conclusion
Thus, the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
Thus, the resolution is negated.  I have shown that it is likely the universe is uncaused, it is more preferable to take stock in other positions (in the absence of direct evidence) and the concept of God is incoherent.  All of which convey that Theism is an unsound position.
Over to Pro.
[2] Pojman, L (1987) Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, p37 (
[3] Tim Maudlin (2010), "On the Passing of Time", The Metaphysics Within Physics

Hello all!
I thank semperfortis for his patience and the opportunity to debate such an important topic.

Definition of Theism: The belief in the creator of the universe. Keep in mind that this creator of the universe bears certain properties, which we will talk about in a moment.The two main contentions I will uphold in this debate are: 

C1 There are no good reasons for Atheism (The belief that God does not exist)
C2 There is good reason for Theism (The belief that God exists)

C1 There are no good reasons for Atheism
To the first contention I will respond to semperfortis’ reasons to why he asserts that God does not exist in my rebuttal after my second contention.

However, the main question to the Atheist is how these complex laws, even the material itself, came to be here?

C2. There is good reason for Theism

The search for the explanation

Before I start, it is important to realize the gravity of the type of argument I will be using. The arguments I will give for Theism are deductive arguments, meaning that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must necessarily follow. These types of arguments then are absolute, which if sound, prove that a creator is necessary. 

Today I will put forward two deductive arguments:
   (1) The Argument From Contingency 
   (2) The Kalam Cosmological Argument

(1) The Argument From Contingency

P1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
P2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
P3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

To Premise One: 

We know that these two categories exist, as we know things like a three sided triangle to be necessary (you can’t have a four sided triangle) and physical things like books, people, planets, etc, to be contingent or requiring a cause for their existence.  
To Premise Two: 

This premise is straightforward. God being defined as the creator, with certain necessary attributes we will examine in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, is the cause our universe requires. Why? Because our universe is contingent or requiring an external cause. Most Atheist argue this point as it is quite obvious where it leads. Ask yourself: What in the universe or about the universe is necessary? You came from somewhere, our planet came from somewhere, our galaxy and the galaxies came from somewhere, etc...all the way to our whole universe. The universe shares these essential contingent properties and thus requires an explanation. 
To Premise Three: 

This also should not be a provocative statement. If our universe didn’t exist, then everything, including this debate, would not exist. 
To Conclusions:

Since these premises require the cause (God) to explain our universe, the conclusion logically follows that God exists. 

(2) The Kalam Cosmological Argument
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, The universe has a cause
For Premise 1
We know that all physical things began with some sort of cause, as something cannot come from nothing. To claim the opposite would be worse than magic, as with magic, at least you have the magician! Similarly we don’t observe things popping out of nothing. Simply, out of nothing, nothing comes.
For Premise 2
For this premise the universe must have begun a finite time ago and so is not infinite.
“Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought” 
-Mathematician David Hilbert
The Infinite Paradox
In reality we know absurdities such as an actual infinite cannot exist.
For example: For today's debate to come from an infinite past requires an infinite series of yesterday's. This would mean that today's debate would never be able to occur, as today would only be prolonged time and time again by another past event, on to infinity, and never occur. But today did happen (and this debate), thus illustrating this impossibility. 
I recommend you check out the Herbert's hotel paradox as my favorite example of this. (1) (see citation below)
Science Confirms
So what does this entail? This means the universe is not infinite, but instead had a start. This is also the best explanation in modern science, as NASA details: "Astronomers combine mathematical models with observations to develop workable theories of how the Universe came to be. The mathematical underpinnings of the Big Bang theory include Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity along with standard theories of fundamental particles. "(2) (see citation below)
Here is a summary of the Big Bang Theory
"The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe." (3) (see citation below)
For Conclusion:
So something had to create the universe, but is it God?
From the Kalam, we find that this creator must be un-caused, as we have seen there cannot be an infinite chain of past causes and thus a beginning not caused to this chain of finite causes. Changeless and timeless because it created time. Lastly this cause must be immaterial, because this cause created material.
There are two other important things that also follow from the Kalam: 
(1) A Mind:
There are only two things that we know to be immaterial candidates for our cause:
 1. An un-embodied mind or 2. Abstract objects like numbers. But abstract objects cannot cause anything, so we are left with a mind.
(2) Personal Cause: 
A personal cause is like our wills, it is the ability of the mind to will something into being.
This makes perfect sense, for if the cause was a mechanically operating set, then the cause couldn’t exist without its effect. For example: If there was a permanent mechanical cause that made water freeze (a permanent freezer if you will), then the water could never unfreeze as the cause is forever making it freeze. The only way our cause of the universe could be timeless and for its effect (creating the universe) could begin a finite time ago, is for the cause to be a personal agent that is with the freedom of the will to choose to create the effect. An example of this, a man sitting for eternity can freely choose to stand up at any time. 
These conclusive traits highlight what Theists call God, the external transcendent personal cause.

A vs B theory of time

Now let me get into some general responses to semperfortis’ case:
semperfortis contends that the universe is without cause. I will refute the argument about time here and respond to the rest in my first rebuttal. 

"The universe uses a b series of time therefore it doesn’t need a cause." (paraphrasing) -semperfortis

There is a major problem with the stance alone. It assumes that an eternal universe doesn’t require a cause, but as the argument from contingency reminds, the universe requires a cause even if it is eternal. 
   Now what about the B-series? It is hard to understand semperfortis’ explanation of the b series, but what I have gathered is that time as we know it does not exist in this world view. A big question needs to be answered: What is time? Time is a measure of change and, importantly, when something changes it is no longer its past self i.e an exploded star, a dead person, etc…
   Why does this matter? Because if time is the measure of change and the b theory of time states that there is no difference between past, present, and future, then the b theory of “time” is really an assertion against time, as if nothing really changes from the past, then time, a measure of change, does not exist. This is where the absurdity of the b theory of “time” reveals itself. That is why we don’t observe our past continue and our future exist in the present. Semperfortis in essence has to accept, and contradict what we constantly observe, that nothing ever changes in order to justify this position. 

Let’s perform an experiment. If past, present, and future are all the same, then semperfortis can respond to this response in his first speech (in the past) and prove us wrong. 
Now we can certainly see why time must exist (and the A theory of time), because it is how we measure change.

To Truth!



(1) (Herbert's Hotel)
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=j_q802eboxA

(2) (NASA and Big Bang Theory)
https://science. Nasa. Gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang

(3) (Big Bang Theory)
https://www. Big-bang-theory. Com/

Round 2
I thank logicae for his response.

== Rebuttals ==

==      Aff        ==
1.       The Cosmological Argument

Pro presents the Cosmological Argument as such:

P1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
P2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
P3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Premise Two
In the first premise, Pro presents a dichotomy: either something exists in the necessity of its own nature, or as an external cause.  Pro has yet to uphold its veracity beyond a bare assertion. Subsequently, Pro commends that the universe must have an external cause, but his justification can be neatly summed up as a fallacy of composition.  Pro states:

“The universe shares these essential contingent properties and thus requires an explanation.“

It is unwarranted that Pro affirms the universe as a whole is to share the properties of the amalgamation of its parts.  Moreover, if the first premise is true, Pro hasn’t demonstrated that the universe cannot exist by virtue of its own nature. 

Pro states he will justify God’s attributes in the KCA, therefore the veracity of this argument is hinged upon the truth of the KCA.

2.       KCA

Pro presents the argument as such:

P1: If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause

It is important to note, that when we talk of the “universe” we are referring to space-time, matter and energy as a whole.
Un-Caused Universe (UU)
My opening case indirectly refutes the second premise rendering the argument unsound. Hence, while the UU withstands this argument is incoherent.
Abductive Observations
The argument as a whole is not rooted in any analytic a priori  explanation. Per the definition of universe I argue that the first premise is only an abductive observation from what we have seen a posteriori.  This intuition is established from the observation that we have observed physical entities to exist contingently (to have a cause for existence). For example, myself as a physical entity required my mother and father to exist -- the existence of a table required a tree. However, all of these, including the table and tree, are all macroscopic entities, which can be broken down into microscopic entities i.e atoms., which in turn would have to be caused to exist by something, per Pro’s logic. I assert that all of these intuitive notions of causal explanations of existence are solely creatio ex materia (matter causing other matter to exist). However, if we were to accept that the universe as a whole exists with a cause of its existence would imply that also space-time and energy have a cause of their existence which is dubious and only an abductive assumption.

Hence, the justification would assume a form as such:

P1: All physical entities (referring to matter) we have observed have a cause for their existence a posteriori
(∀x) (Ex -> Cx) *for all x, if x is a physical entity then x has a cause for its existence)*

P2: The universe is, in part, physical.
(∀x)(Ux -> Ix) *for all x, if x is a universe then x is in part physical*

P3: If something is, in part, physical, then it has a cause of its existence *abductive assumption*
 (∀x) (Ix -> Cx) “ *for all x, if x is in part physical, then x has a cause for its existence* <- not identical to P2.

C: The universe has a cause of its existence
 (Ux -> Cx) *for all x, if x is a universe then x has a cause of its existence*
To restate, Pro’s argument references matter specifically; not any other aspect of the universe. To put this into perspective, matter (stars, planets galaxies etc.) accounts for only ~5% of the universe [1].  The rest of the universe is comprised of ~27% dark matter (which isn’t detectable outside of its gravitational influence) and ~68% dark energy [1].  Pro’s abductive assumption is predicated on the behaviour of only 5% of the universe.   

Moreover, since this intuition is rooted in observation the conclusion can be reversed, since we have never *observed* creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) how can we intuitively assume that the universe was created from nothing when we have not observed anything to be created from nothing? Hence, I can derive a counter argument using the same abductive assumption via synthetic a posteriori observation:
P1: If the universe was caused to exist,  creatio ex nihilo is possible
Creatio ex nihilo is impossible (hasn’t been observed) *abductive assumption*
C: An external cause of the universe is impossible
Both are abductive arguments, so which one is more true than the other?
Actual Infinities
Pro contends that actual infinites cannot exist, therefore the universe cannot exist infinitely.  Despite my opening case indirectly refuting this, I will address it again here specifically.

Pro cites the Hilbert’s Hotel Paradox (HHP).  However, HHP doesn’t prove that ‘actual’ infinites are metaphysically impossible, like a “falsidical paradox”, but rather demonstrates that it is a “verdical paradox” [2].   A verdical paradox only presents a result that appears absurd, but is “demonstrated to be true nonetheless” [3].  Whilst our intuitive faculties deem ‘actual infinity’ to be absurd, it only demonstrates that infinity is an unintuitive concept.  Moreover, actual infinites have been observed to be true, since black holes have infinite density i.e have infinite space-time curvature.
The Big Bang Theory
Pro misrepresents what The Big Bang Theory actually postulates.  Whilst Pro’s snippet references the “very beginning of the universe”, this does not represent t = 0.  As stated in my opening case, General Relativity can make successful predictions down to t = ~1x10-30s. What occurred before this is truly unknown. Stephen Hawking describes that if the universe was once a singularity (all matter, space-time and energy contained within a 0-dimensional, infinitesimal point where density and temperature is infinite), then “the state of our universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern our universe will break down… Even the amount of matter can be different… as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang” [4].  Thus, even if we are to accept that the universe had a cause of its existence, why is a Theistic God needed?  If the Law of Conservation of Energy breaks down at a singularity, then it can provide an impersonal cause of the universe.

Thus, Pro posits a false dichotomy, that either a mind, or abstract objects can be the cause.  There is evidently a third option: that the universe did ‘pop into existence’ sans empirical governance.  

== Defence ==

C1 Uncaused Universe

A-Theory vs B-Theory

Pro rebuts:
“then the B theory of time is really an assertion against time”

The B-Theory of time does not attempt to dismiss ‘time’ as a whole, but rather dismiss a ‘presentist’ view of time.  I apologize if my explanation was difficult to understand, I will try to explain it more clearly.
If Presentism were true (that the present is what ‘currently’ exists) then everyone’s present must be the same by definition.  Prima facie, we observe Presentism to be true.  However, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity inherently rebukes Presentism.  This is because Einstein found that objects travelling at high velocities (~0.3c), or entities in a strong gravitational field experience time ‘more slowly’ than observers on Earth.  The movie Interstellar captures this very well. Furthermore, this ‘time dilation’ means that different observers cannot agree on the occurrences of events.  For example, relative to the ISS, we are closer to the centre of Earth’s mass, meaning that we experience a greater gravitational force than those in the ISS.  By extension, this also means that time is ‘experienced’ more quickly by people on the ISS.  The effects of this relativistic time-dilation are so significant that if the clocks utilized by satellites weren’t adjusted accordingly they would be useless, since they run slightly faster than they do here on the surface of Earth [5].  This is why at first glance we observe Presentism to be true, because we all experience a world where we are all in the same gravitational field, and we are at no point travelling near the fractions of the speed of light for time dilation to be noticeable.  Nonetheless, this time dilation occurs and it is this time dilation that affirms the B-Theory of time – if Presentism were true there is an absolute passage of time (absolute simultaneity), but Einstein’s Theory of Relativity posits that time is relative (relative simultaneity).  This is observationally vindicated by the expansion of the universe, as predicted by the description of the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric and quantum entanglement (as evidence at the fundamental level).

Thus, we have no reason to reject the B-Theory of time and it is evident that it is the ontology most congruent with natural law.

Other Contentions
Pro will address C2 and C3 in the following round.
Over to Pro.


Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
No comments yet
No votes yet