The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
lovespellssa
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Presentism Is False

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 953 times Debate No: 39391
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Presentism is the theory that only the present plays a part of reality. This entails that the past was real and did play a part of reality, but only exists as a memory now, and that the future has no part of existence. This seems to be the view that most people share. People believe that now is real, and that the past is not real, and that the future is not real but will become the present. For example, 5 minutes from now plays no part in reality, but in 5 minutes, it will be a "now" point and part of reality.

"Presentism is the view that only present objects exist. More precisely, it is the view that, necessarily, it is always true that only present objects exist." [http://plato.stanford.edu...]

Of course, that definition above only applies to temporal objects (objects that exist pertaining to some temporal order). I will argue that this view of the Presentist is false, or at the very least way more plausibly false than its negation, and that some other theory of time which views the future as a reality is preferable; my opponent only has to undermine my argument sufficiently to win.

The first round is for acceptance.
lovespellssa

Con

Present-ism is true since all events and entities that are wholly past or wholly future do not exist at all. So it is logical to assume that only the present exists.

Some of the difficulties and paradoxes of presentism can be resolved by changing the normal view of time as a container or thing unto itself and seeing time as a measure of changing spacial relationships among objects;

Thus observers need not be extended in time to exist and be aware, but rather they exist and the changes in internal relationships within the observer can be measured by stable countable events.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Introduction

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. However, the first round was just supposed to be for acceptance and no arguments. Either way, Con is new member, so I ask voters to let that one slide.

Addressing My Opponent's Arguments

"Present-ism is true since all events and entities that are wholly past or wholly future do not exist at all. So it is logical to
assume that only the present exists."
- Con

All Con does here is restate the presentist position (the position that the past and future do not exist). However, stating a position and defending a position are not the same. This just seems like a fallacy of presumption.

"Some of the difficulties and paradoxes of presentism can be resolved by changing the normal view of time as a container or thing unto itself and seeing time as a measure of changing spacial relationships among objects; Thus observers need not be extended in time to exist and be aware, but rather they exist and the changes in internal relationships within the observer can be measured by stable countable events." -
Con

In this debate I focus more on the scientific and metaphysical problems with Presentism, and the logical paradoxes which show that Presentism is logically impossible will not be included in my debate. This makes the above from Con rather trivial

Argument In Favor Of The Falsehood Of Presentism

My argument will actually be in the form of two arguments (or sub-arguments if you would like):

Sub-Argument A:

P1A: If retro-causality is a real phenomenon, the future is real

P2A: Retro-causality is a real phenomenon

CA: Therefore, the future is real


Sub-Argument B:

P1B: If the future is real, Presentism is false

P2B: The future is real

CB: Therefore, Presentism is false

The two sub-arguments arguments are logically valid Modus Ponens arguments[1]. This is evident as they both follow the "if p then q; p; therefore q" formula. The question that remains pertains to whether or not the premises are true, or at least sufficiently more plausibly true than their negation.

Defense Of P1A

P1A should be easy to establish, because if something happens "now" that is "retro-caused", then this could only happen if the future is real. Why is this so? Well, something that plays no part of reality or never has; has no causal ability. So if an effect occurs "now" that is "retro-caused", then this means that the cause exists in the future and must exist, or else the retro-causal relationship couldn't even take place. At any time retro-causality occurred, and included an effect that was a "now" at a certain point, the future was real and existed for that causal process to even have potential. If an effect occurred right "now" that was "retro-caused", that implies that the future exists. How could something that is non-existent, and never played a part in reality have causal powers? That's a metaphysical impossibility; it couldn't. It would be like saying the non-existent person sneezed. So, I think that P1A is way more than reasonable than its negation because an effect that is "retro-caused" "now" clearly implies the future.

Defense Of P2A

Recent delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics show retro-causality is a real phenomenon [2], and this result has been tested with extreme accuracy. Thus, P2A is scientifically justified.

Defense Of P1B

P1B is true by definition. Presentism is the view that only the present is real, so if the future plays a part of reality, then this self-evidently contradicts Presentism.

Defense of P2B

This premise is simply the conclusion to Sub-Argument A. Since I showed Sub-Argument A to be sound, then P2B is true by default.

Conclusion

I presented a logically valid argument (in the form of two sub-arguments) that shows presentism is false, and sufficiently supported the premises. Therefore, it follows that Presentism is false.

The resolution has been established.

Sources
lovespellssa

Con

lovespellssa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

My opponent forfeited.
lovespellssa

Con

lovespellssa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

My opponent forfeited.
lovespellssa

Con

lovespellssa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Dragonfyre 3 years ago
Dragonfyre
Im considering accepting, but I have yet to do real thinking on the subject... well, that and thi would be my first debate...anyways, if this debate is still available in 3 days, I will accept.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Rational_Thinker9119lovespellssaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I posted this in the past.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Rational_Thinker9119lovespellssaTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con threw the fits of the fore.