The Instigator
lord_starscream
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SNP1
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Is the future already written/predicted(pro), or it is unstable and dependent upon our choices(con)?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
SNP1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 422 times Debate No: 75789
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

lord_starscream

Con

I think the future is not already settled like some people say. No, I think that the future is unstable and changes a lot.
SNP1

Pro

Metaphysically, if the future exists, then the future cannot change (eternalism).

If the B-Theory of Time is true, then eternalism is also true.

In order for the future to be able to change, either presentism or possiblism must be true. If presentism or possiblism is true, then the A-Theory of Time is true.

Under the A-Theory of Time there is a definite "now", meaning time is a constant. General and Special Relativity refute the A-Theory of Time and actually support the B-Theory of Time (thus supporting eternalism).

Furthermore, delayed wait in quantum physics can be explained with retrocausality, which would be direct support for eternalism.

Last, recent experiments in quantum physics has time as an emergent property, which goes against the A-Theory of Time and supports the B-Theory of Time.

Now, with all this support of eternalism we can safely say that the future exists, thus making it so the future cannot be changed.

I will provide my sources used in another round.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_starscream

Con

I am not so good in science, so I'll need your sources to understand what point you are trying.
SNP1

Pro

It is mostly philosophy, the sources are about the science that supports the philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://medium.com...
http://www.atheismandthecity.com...
Debate Round No. 2
lord_starscream

Con

lord_starscream forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by lord_starscream 1 year ago
lord_starscream
No rules
Posted by SNP1 1 year ago
SNP1
Is the 1st round acceptance only?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
lord_starscreamSNP1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con forfeits the final round, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Thus, conduct to Con. S&G - Tie. Both sides maintained fair and adequate S&G. Arguments - Pro. Con did not respond to any of Pro's arguments, that related to determinism being vindicated by the B-theory of time that is entailed by general relativity, special relativity and experiments from quantum mechanics. Con does not respond to these, requesting Pro for their sources to respond--Pro provides the sources, but Con forfeits the final round, thus being unable to refute Pro's contentions. Sources - Tie. Pro was the only one to present sources, so a standard of "more reliable" is incoherent here. Thus, conduct and arguments to Pro. And, as always, I'm happy to clarify this RFD.