Presentism is true. Meaning, only the present is real and non-abstract.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
I shall be arguing for presentism. I shall define it as the view in which the only reality that exists now is present reality when it comes to non-abstract or non-imaginary existence. The present moment is all that is concrete.
In other words, I shall be saying that current existence is all that is concrete and non-abstract. The present is the current and the current is the current. Current is opposed to general. Things exist generally only in the abstract or in our imagination ... because our abstractions and imagination is only present in our brains now. There is no non-abstract real, non-imaginary or concrete existence that is non-current or non-present.
(P2) The present is not what doesn't exist now.
(P2) It is very clear that it is not the future itself or the past itself that exists now as that would be contradictory.
Best wishes to everybody and good luck to my opponent.
I cannot deny this if what you mean is that our experiential, evidential and empirical data demonstrate that our experience of light evidently seems to take 8 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth.
The past sun existed. The present sun exists. Our experiential model of the past can exist 'now' but this does not contradict my claim. I am not denying that our scientific models and our experiential reality cannot imagine or conceptualize the past or future now. Clearly it can. That's how we remember and predict things in the present. None of this contradict my claim that the present is all that exists now in the non-abstract That the present is real. That the present is all that is non-imaginary. That the present is all that is beyond scientific models if anything is beyond it at all. That the past and future are what existed and will exist and what existed or will exist is not the same thing as what exists. What will be being is not being now. What was being is not being now. Only being now is being now.
You are clearly, again, just addressing a scientific model or our experience of it again. The fact you stated the scientific fact that the sun takes 8 minutes to travel to us just shows that you completely ignored my whole argument about why science isn't relevant and why science deals with models of reality rather than reality itself.
As a scientific, experiential or abstract model which I have not denied and doesn't contradict my claim.
Notice you use the word "observe". Again, you are relying on empirical observations and models of reality rather than reality itself. As stipulated in my opening argument ... science is not relevant here. You have to deal with my argument with pure logic and that cannot be done because my argument is tautologically true. I preempted the argument against science because it's all I ever deal with because there is no logical argument against my position. The fact that you have to rely on models and observations in order to argue against my claim that says that I am not arguing against such models or observations (that I don't deny that we can have models or the past or future in the present or that we can observe such things experientially even if they have no reality beyond our experience or observation).
And you are only providing facts or arguments for the former and the former is not dealing with my claim. The present as it is in itself can only be presently present. We can conceptualize anything in the moment. We can even conceptualize contradictions in the moment. So the fact that we can conceptualize and imagine and model our CONCEPTS OF the past and the future in the present is no argument for the silly idea that what is no longer happening is still happening or that what hasn't happened yet is already happening. Nor is it any argument for how the present is not present.
My claim is literally that the only thing that concretely exists now is what exists now. That is an airtight tautology.. There is no argument against that.
You can't contradict my case because my case is tautologically true (true by definition). And all that you have provided are examples that I explained weren't relevant in my opening argument. But you haven't addressed that argument for precisely why it's not relevant. You brought up scientific facts right after I explained why that wouldn't be relevant without offering a counterargument for why you think it is relevant.
They don't have to exist at the same time. One existed and the other will exist. I don't deny that the past existed or that the future exists. X existed and caused Y and then when Y became present it later became Z. Presentism can easily deal with this because causality is still a process that happens across time. The future can still exist. The past can still exist. They just can't exist NOW. They can't exist RIGHT NOW. Becasue right now is literally not the past or future right now is right now! To suggest that my claim that all that exists now is all that exists now can't make sense of causality is to just completely misunderstand my claim.
Seen as you like facts ... what about the fact that the energy that resides in matter is in flux and that our cells and who we are and what something is is constantly changing? We still say we're the same thing even when all our atoms have changed. We do this because it's a useful model. But this doesn't mean that we actually have the same atoms or that what was still is or that what will be is already happening.
. "Even if the only thing that exists in the present is the wetness, how can con disprove that there was a flood previously"
I haven't claimed that the past didn't exist. I have claimed that the past doesn't exist. I haven't claimed that the future won't exist. I have claimed that the future doesn't exist. We can have concepts of the past and the future now but that doesn't mean that the past or future exists now. We can't actually already have what is no longer happening or what hasn't happened yet.
I never said that the past never existed. I said that the past doesn't exist. I didn't say that there was no past. I said that there is no past. The past is what was. The past was. I don't deny that the past happened. I deny that the past is happening. Only the present is happening.
Unsurprising. Congrats to my opponent. I tried my best to say what I think is true and explain why it is so but I failed to be persuasive.
Still, I enjoyed it nonetheless.
Pro decided in R1 to hide his point, doing a really lengthy complaint about disliking some author for how they named a book. Some nuggets tied to the resolution were deeply buried in there, but weakened by his argument structure.
Con used the passage of time related to observable phenomena, and cause and effect, to prove that the past must be real. This leaves their existence having measurable impacts, rather than being just imaginary. This implied (and was followed up in R2) that the present we believe we experience, is actually past stimuli rather than present reality. As much as this is a weird rabbit hole of thinking, it ultimately shakes confidence in pro's claims, thereby denying him positive affirmation of the resolution.