Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Argument from Eternalism

tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 11:05:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is an argument that I have defended over debate before, but never via an OP. I hope this will be sufficient to generate great discussion. What am I defending? I defend the "argument from eternalism," an argument against the existence of God that invokes the ontology of time known as eternalism. First, let me define some terms.

== Terms ==

First, what is "God?" For the purposes of this argument, I will define God as the "rational, conscious being that was the efficient cause of the contingent universe."

Secondly, I must define what "eternalism" actually is. Eternalism is a worldview wherein tenses are not objective facts -- rather, the "past," "present" and "future" all exist together as one, tenseless space-time block. It holds the "arrow of time" as contingent on the brain -- the brain perceives different tenses, while all events occur tenselessly. Note, this does not involve saying "time doesn't exist" so much as the distinction between "past," "present" and "future."

Finally, what is an "efficient cause?" An efficient cause is a cause that was responsible for the universe to *begin existing,* rather than a cause that results in the universe's continued existence. To add on to the definition of an "efficient cause," we need to understand what it means to "begin to exist." According to analytic philosopher William Lane Craig, "[An entity/object] e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e's existing at t is a tensed fact." [http://www.reasonablefaith.org...] This means that, if the universe came into being at a certain time (t), then the universe existed at that moment, that time was the first time when the universe existed (prior to which the universe didn't exist), the universe never existed timelessly (because otherwise, the universe couldn't have existed at a certain "time" once and then moved on to separate time), and -- since the universe existed at a time t once and doesn't anymore -- the existence of the universe at that time was a tensed fact.

== The Argument ==

The argument from eternalism is formalized deductively:

1: If the universe never began, God doesn't exist
2: The universe never began
C: God doesn't exist

Premise 1: The existence of God depends on the beginning of the universe

God is, by definition, the "efficient cause" of the universe. As the user N7 puts it, "In order for this to be true, the universe must begin. It must at one time not have existed. Otherwise, God would not have been the creator, only a sustainer of something that has existed as long as he has." [http://www.debate.org...]

Premise 2: The universe never began existing

I argue that the universe never began existing. I defend this via the ontology of time known as "eternalism," for which the whole argument is named. My argument is formalized below.

2.1. The universe never began to exist under eternalism

Under eternalism, the universe is tenseless. Its existence at a certain time is not a tensed fact, because there is only *one* constant 't'. Upon this, the universe could never have coherently "begun to exist." I concede that inflation results in some sort of a finite universe -- but a universe that is finite *does not* entail a universe that "began existing." This is because, to "begin to exist," the universe "did not exist before a certain time," but I have to use a word like "before" -- but sans the universe, there is no time. The only conclusion is that, under eternalism, the universe would be a tense-less, four-dimensional space-time block -- it would be static sans time. Without brains, there is no "passage of time," only the existence of a static time that expands like space does. The beginning would be like that of a scale's first inch. Basically, if the past and future exist alongside the present, then the universe never "began" existing, since its future would "already exist," in a sense, when the universe encompasses all of time.

2.2. Eternalism is true

> 2.2.1. Special relativity

Under special relativity, no two events are absolutely simultaneous. According to relativity of simultaneity, the simultaneity of events is relative to the observer's motion and speed of observation. Each observer has a plane of simultaneity, a section of spacetime which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment. A tensed ontology would entail that space is entirely three-dimensional, but a three-dimensional space wouldn't explain observers at different motion experiencing separate simultaneity if there is offset in distance. Only a tenseless ontology can account for this.

> 2.2.2. Quantum mechanics

Experiments from quantum mechanics vindicate eternalism. Photons have been entangled through time, where quantum entanglement results in photons being moved into the past. [http://www.livescience.com...] Further, time dilation has been observed; if there is time dilation in all temporal "directions," then the past, present and future all exist on the same plane, vindicating eternalism.

Conclusion: God doesn't exist

I have demonstrated that (a) for God to be an "efficient cause" of the universe the universe must have begun existing at a certain time, due to the definition of an "efficient cause" as preceding the universe and causing its existence, and that (b) due to quantum mechanics and special relativity, a tenseless ontology of time is affirmed, which shows that the universe never began to exist. Under a syllogistic deductive format of modus ponens (p-->q, p, .: q), the conclusion is unavoidable: God probably doesn't exist.

Thus, the argument is defended.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 1:29:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 11:05:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
This is an argument that I have defended over debate before, but never via an OP. I hope this will be sufficient to generate great discussion. What am I defending? I defend the "argument from eternalism," an argument against the existence of God that invokes the ontology of time known as eternalism. First, let me define some terms.

== Terms ==

First, what is "God?" For the purposes of this argument, I will define God as the "rational, conscious being that was the efficient cause of the contingent universe."

Secondly, I must define what "eternalism" actually is. Eternalism is a worldview wherein tenses are not objective facts -- rather, the "past," "present" and "future" all exist together as one, tenseless space-time block. It holds the "arrow of time" as contingent on the brain -- the brain perceives different tenses, while all events occur tenselessly. Note, this does not involve saying "time doesn't exist" so much as the distinction between "past," "present" and "future."
Eternalism isn't proper subject matter for a syllogism. Neither is God. Neither is whether or not the universe was created, as none of those subjects are agreed upon facts. Most people who haven't made it past sophomore logic classes make this mistake. It means your argument is nothing but a personal opinion fallacy. In other words, you have no argument. Only agreed upon facts are to be used within a syllogism. When the premises are in just as much need of proof as the conclusion, the reasoning behind the argument becomes what is applicable. The form is irrelevant but the reasoning behind the subjects and how you've reached your conclusions is only to be considered. Since you've violated the rules of logic in regards to what subject matter belongs in a syllogism , it is invalid and a useless argument.
Finally, what is an "efficient cause?" An efficient cause is a cause that was responsible for the universe to *begin existing,* rather than a cause that results in the universe's continued existence. To add on to the definition of an "efficient cause," we need to understand what it means to "begin to exist." According to analytic philosopher William Lane Craig, "[An entity/object] e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e's existing at t is a tensed fact." [http://www.reasonablefaith.org...] This means that, if the universe came into being at a certain time (t), then the universe existed at that moment, that time was the first time when the universe existed (prior to which the universe didn't exist), the universe never existed timelessly (because otherwise, the universe couldn't have existed at a certain "time" once and then moved on to separate time), and -- since the universe existed at a time t once and doesn't anymore -- the existence of the universe at that time was a tensed fact.

== The Argument ==

The argument from eternalism is formalized deductively:

1: If the universe never began, God doesn't exist
2: The universe never began
C: God doesn't exist
Prove the universe never began, ....you can't.
Prove God doesn't exist,..... you can't.
Prove that a God doesn't exist just because the universe didn't begin.
Your argument is circular reasoning because nothing is an agreed upon fact. You have absolutely no evidence to support anything.
Premise 1: The existence of God depends on the beginning of the universe
Technically the physical universe may or may not have had a beginning, nevertheless, you don't have universally agreed upon facts, therefore its personal opinion and fallacious.
God is, by definition, the "efficient cause" of the universe. As the user N7 puts it, "In order for this to be true, the universe must begin. It must at one time not have existed. Otherwise, God would not have been the creator, only a sustainer of something that has existed as long as he has." [http://www.debate.org...]

Premise 2: The universe never began existing

I argue that the universe never began existing. I defend this via the ontology of time known as "eternalism," for which the whole argument is named. My argument is formalized below.

2.1. The universe never began to exist under eternalism

Under eternalism, the universe is tenseless. Its existence at a certain time is not a tensed fact, because there is only *one* constant 't'. Upon this, the universe could never have coherently "begun to exist." I concede that inflation results in some sort of a finite universe -- but a universe that is finite *does not* entail a universe that "began existing." This is because, to "begin to exist," the universe "did not exist before a certain time," but I have to use a word like "before" -- but sans the universe, there is no time. The only conclusion is that, under eternalism, the universe would be a tense-less, four-dimensional space-time block -- it would be static sans time. Without brains, there is no "passage of time," only the existence of a static time that expands like space does. The beginning would be like that of a scale's first inch. Basically, if the past and future exist alongside the present, then the universe never "began" existing, since its future would "already exist," in a sense, when the universe encompasses all of time.

2.2. Eternalism is true
Prove it
> 2.2.1. Special relativity

Under special relativity, no two events are absolutely simultaneous. According to relativity of simultaneity, the simultaneity of events is relative to the observer's motion and speed of observation. Each observer has a plane of simultaneity, a section of spacetime which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment. A tensed ontology would entail that space is entirely three-dimensional, but a three-dimensional space wouldn't explain observers at different motion experiencing separate simultaneity if there is offset in distance. Only a tenseless ontology can account for this.

Speed of light is not a constant, strike one Einstein.
No person can observe anything if they are traveling the speed of light, strike 2 Einstein.
Observe means to see. In order to see light has to reflect off an object to reach the human eye, lense, and then retina etc. If a person is traveling the speed of light then light cannot reflect off or something into a persons eye.
> 2.2.2. Quantum mechanics

Experiments from quantum mechanics vindicate eternalism. Photons have been entangled through time, where quantum entanglement results in photons being moved into the past. [http://www.livescience.com...] Further, time dilation has been observed; if there is time dilation in all temporal "directions," then the past, present and future all exist on the same plane, vindicating eternalism.
You say quantum entanglement results in photons being moved into the past in the same argument where you say there are no tensed facts, well then you can't "move" into the past, past is a tense.
Time has not been observed. You cannot observe time, you can only observe a clock. Please prove a mechanical or electrical device that was put together and designed by humans has a scientifically proven connection to this thing you call time. Show the experiment that examined the physical evidence that proves there exists such a connection. You can't.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist
Conclusion, you have an opinion, as do we all.
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 1:37:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 1:29:25 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/17/2015 11:05:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
This is an argument that I have defended over debate before, but never via an OP. I hope this will be sufficient to generate great discussion. What am I defending? I defend the "argument from eternalism," an argument against the existence of God that invokes the ontology of time known as eternalism. First, let me define some terms.

== Terms ==

First, what is "God?" For the purposes of this argument, I will define God as the "rational, conscious being that was the efficient cause of the contingent universe."

Secondly, I must define what "eternalism" actually is. Eternalism is a worldview wherein tenses are not objective facts -- rather, the "past," "present" and "future" all exist together as one, tenseless space-time block. It holds the "arrow of time" as contingent on the brain -- the brain perceives different tenses, while all events occur tenselessly. Note, this does not involve saying "time doesn't exist" so much as the distinction between "past," "present" and "future."
Eternalism isn't proper subject matter for a syllogism. Neither is God. Neither is whether or not the universe was created, as none of those subjects are agreed upon facts. Most people who haven't made it past sophomore logic classes make this mistake. It means your argument is nothing but a personal opinion fallacy. In other words, you have no argument. Only agreed upon facts are to be used within a syllogism. When the premises are in just as much need of proof as the conclusion, the reasoning behind the argument becomes what is applicable. The form is irrelevant but the reasoning behind the subjects and how you've reached your conclusions is only to be considered. Since you've violated the rules of logic in regards to what subject matter belongs in a syllogism , it is invalid and a useless argument.
Finally, what is an "efficient cause?" An efficient cause is a cause that was responsible for the universe to *begin existing,* rather than a cause that results in the universe's continued existence. To add on to the definition of an "efficient cause," we need to understand what it means to "begin to exist." According to analytic philosopher William Lane Craig, "[An entity/object] e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e's existing at t is a tensed fact." [http://www.reasonablefaith.org...] This means that, if the universe came into being at a certain time (t), then the universe existed at that moment, that time was the first time when the universe existed (prior to which the universe didn't exist), the universe never existed timelessly (because otherwise, the universe couldn't have existed at a certain "time" once and then moved on to separate time), and -- since the universe existed at a time t once and doesn't anymore -- the existence of the universe at that time was a tensed fact.

== The Argument ==

The argument from eternalism is formalized deductively:

1: If the universe never began, God doesn't exist
2: The universe never began
C: God doesn't exist
Prove the universe never began, ....you can't.
Prove God doesn't exist,..... you can't.
Prove that a God doesn't exist just because the universe didn't begin.
Your argument is circular reasoning because nothing is an agreed upon fact. You have absolutely no evidence to support anything.
Premise 1: The existence of God depends on the beginning of the universe
Technically the physical universe may or may not have had a beginning, nevertheless, you don't have universally agreed upon facts, therefore its personal opinion and fallacious.
God is, by definition, the "efficient cause" of the universe. As the user N7 puts it, "In order for this to be true, the universe must begin. It must at one time not have existed. Otherwise, God would not have been the creator, only a sustainer of something that has existed as long as he has." [http://www.debate.org...]

Premise 2: The universe never began existing

I argue that the universe never began existing. I defend this via the ontology of time known as "eternalism," for which the whole argument is named. My argument is formalized below.

2.1. The universe never began to exist under eternalism

Under eternalism, the universe is tenseless. Its existence at a certain time is not a tensed fact, because there is only *one* constant 't'. Upon this, the universe could never have coherently "begun to exist." I concede that inflation results in some sort of a finite universe -- but a universe that is finite *does not* entail a universe that "began existing." This is because, to "begin to exist," the universe "did not exist before a certain time," but I have to use a word like "before" -- but sans the universe, there is no time. The only conclusion is that, under eternalism, the universe would be a tense-less, four-dimensional space-time block -- it would be static sans time. Without brains, there is no "passage of time," only the existence of a static time that expands like space does. The beginning would be like that of a scale's first inch. Basically, if the past and future exist alongside the present, then the universe never "began" existing, since its future would "already exist," in a sense, when the universe encompasses all of time.

2.2. Eternalism is true
Prove it
> 2.2.1. Special relativity

Under special relativity, no two events are absolutely simultaneous. According to relativity of simultaneity, the simultaneity of events is relative to the observer's motion and speed of observation. Each observer has a plane of simultaneity, a section of spacetime which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment. A tensed ontology would entail that space is entirely three-dimensional, but a three-dimensional space wouldn't explain observers at different motion experiencing separate simultaneity if there is offset in distance. Only a tenseless ontology can account for this.

Speed of light is not a constant, strike one Einstein.
No person can observe anything if they are traveling the speed of light, strike 2 Einstein.
Observe means to see. In order to see light has to reflect off an object to reach the human eye, lense, and then retina etc. If a person is traveling the speed of light then light cannot reflect off or something into a persons eye.
> 2.2.2. Quantum mechanics

Experiments from quantum mechanics vindicate eternalism. Photons have been entangled through time, where quantum entanglement results in photons being moved into the past. [http://www.livescience.com...] Further, time dilation has been observed; if there is time dilation in all temporal "directions," then the past, present and future all exist on the same plane, vindicating eternalism.
You say quantum entanglement results in photons being moved into the past in the same argument where you say there are no tensed facts, well then you can't "move" into the past, past is a tense.
Time has not been observed. You cannot observe time, you can only observe a clock. Please prove a mechanical or electrical device that was put together and designed by humans has a scientifically proven connection to this thing you call time. Show the experiment that examined the physical evidence that proves there exists such a connection. You can't.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist
Conclusion, you have an opinion, as do we all.


He isn't trying to provide facts, this is his argu
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 1:39:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is his argument. There is no need for you to attack it as faulty reasoning.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 2:31:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 1:29:25 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/17/2015 11:05:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
== The Argument ==

The argument from eternalism is formalized deductively:

1: If the universe never began, God doesn't exist
2: The universe never began
C: God doesn't exist
Prove the universe never began, ....you can't.
Prove God doesn't exist,..... you can't.
Prove that a God doesn't exist just because the universe didn't begin.
Your argument is circular reasoning because nothing is an agreed upon fact. You have absolutely no evidence to support anything.

How is it begging the question? What's the argument assuming? Why can't you prove the universe never began? You attacked the theory of relativity when it came to the defense section, not the entailment of it proving eternalism..
Premise 1: The existence of God depends on the beginning of the universe
Technically the physical universe may or may not have had a beginning, nevertheless, you don't have universally agreed upon facts, therefore its personal opinion and fallacious.
God is, by definition, the "efficient cause" of the universe. As the user N7 puts it, "In order for this to be true, the universe must begin. It must at one time not have existed. Otherwise, God would not have been the creator, only a sustainer of something that has existed as long as he has." [http://www.debate.org...]

Premise 2: The universe never began existing

I argue that the universe never began existing. I defend this via the ontology of time known as "eternalism," for which the whole argument is named. My argument is formalized below.

2.1. The universe never began to exist under eternalism

Under eternalism, the universe is tenseless. Its existence at a certain time is not a tensed fact, because there is only *one* constant 't'. Upon this, the universe could never have coherently "begun to exist." I concede that inflation results in some sort of a finite universe -- but a universe that is finite *does not* entail a universe that "began existing." This is because, to "begin to exist," the universe "did not exist before a certain time," but I have to use a word like "before" -- but sans the universe, there is no time. The only conclusion is that, under eternalism, the universe would be a tense-less, four-dimensional space-time block -- it would be static sans time. Without brains, there is no "passage of time," only the existence of a static time that expands like space does. The beginning would be like that of a scale's first inch. Basically, if the past and future exist alongside the present, then the universe never "began" existing, since its future would "already exist," in a sense, when the universe encompasses all of time.

2.2. Eternalism is true
Prove it
> 2.2.1. Special relativity

Under special relativity, no two events are absolutely simultaneous. According to relativity of simultaneity, the simultaneity of events is relative to the observer's motion and speed of observation. Each observer has a plane of simultaneity, a section of spacetime which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment. A tensed ontology would entail that space is entirely three-dimensional, but a three-dimensional space wouldn't explain observers at different motion experiencing separate simultaneity if there is offset in distance. Only a tenseless ontology can account for this.

Speed of light is not a constant, strike one Einstein.
You can't just contradict the claims of relativity and act like you've demonstrated it false.
No person can observe anything if they are traveling the speed of light, strike 2 Einstein.
Observe means to see. In order to see light has to reflect off an object to reach the human eye, lense, and then retina etc. If a person is traveling the speed of light then light cannot reflect off or something into a persons eye.
Relativity rejects the concept that you can travel at light speed, so how is this a problem?
> 2.2.2. Quantum mechanics

Experiments from quantum mechanics vindicate eternalism. Photons have been entangled through time, where quantum entanglement results in photons being moved into the past. [http://www.livescience.com...] Further, time dilation has been observed; if there is time dilation in all temporal "directions," then the past, present and future all exist on the same plane, vindicating eternalism.
You say quantum entanglement results in photons being moved into the past in the same argument where you say there are no tensed facts, well then you can't "move" into the past, past is a tense.
You can still use them in tenseless ways. Past would mean 'before the choice to entangle photons was made.'
Time has not been observed. You cannot observe time, you can only observe a clock. Please prove a mechanical or electrical device that was put together and designed by humans has a scientifically proven connection to this thing you call time. Show the experiment that examined the physical evidence that proves there exists such a connection. You can't.
If time is defined as "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole." then the fact that there are two different moments proves the existence of time. If you mean it in the sense of passage, then you agree with the argument, as eternalism holds no passage of time. What's your point anyway? If you reject the existence of time then you reject the beginning of the universe, which is what the OP is arguing for in the first place.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist
Conclusion, you have an opinion, as do we all.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 4:59:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 11:05:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
then the past, present and future all exist on the same plane, vindicating eternalism.

Under eternalism, it seems to me, there is no room for causes and effects. But we know and perceive causes and effects. Therefore, eternalism must be false.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 5:13:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What about Big Bang theory? There's consensus in the mainstream scientific community that the universe had an absolute beginning at the Big Bang. Our universe is still expanding.

I don't see how BBT is compatible with eternalism. It sounds like eternalism would be much more plausible if it weren't for that.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 5:17:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 4:59:24 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 11:05:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
then the past, present and future all exist on the same plane, vindicating eternalism.

Under eternalism, it seems to me, there is no room for causes and effects. But we know and perceive causes and effects. Therefore, eternalism must be false.

That's a good point. Causes and effects must exist independent of each other, meaning that causes and effects having a causal relation are merely illusory.. Every "frame" so to speak already exists and a cause can't affect the effect.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 5:20:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What about the second law of thermodynamics? There should be a long term increase in net entropy which sets temporal restraints on a theory of time.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 5:24:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 4:59:24 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 11:05:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
then the past, present and future all exist on the same plane, vindicating eternalism.

Under eternalism, it seems to me, there is no room for causes and effects. But we know and perceive causes and effects. Therefore, eternalism must be false.

Or, y'know, your perceptions could be false.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 5:25:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 5:24:07 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/17/2015 4:59:24 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 11:05:06 AM, tejretics wrote:
then the past, present and future all exist on the same plane, vindicating eternalism.

Under eternalism, it seems to me, there is no room for causes and effects. But we know and perceive causes and effects. Therefore, eternalism must be false.

Or, y'know, your perceptions could be false.

That's enough weed for you.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:02:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 5:13:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What about Big Bang theory? There's consensus in the mainstream scientific community that the universe had an absolute beginning at the Big Bang. Our universe is still expanding.

I don't see how BBT is compatible with eternalism. It sounds like eternalism would be much more plausible if it weren't for that.

The big bang would be like inch one on a ruler that has existed forever. Eternalism isn't the same as saying there is an infinite amount of events.

Furthermore, the big bang hardly states the universe had a beginning. It states the known universe came into existence via a singularity[http://www.space.com...]. A singularity certainly isn't a state of nonbeing. It doesn't make much sense to me to claim science demonstrates the universe came from a state of nonbeing, because science cannot study nonbeing nor can it be observed. All models would seem to necessitate some sort physical existence before the existence of what we call the universe.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:04:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 5:20:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
What about the second law of thermodynamics? There should be a long term increase in net entropy which sets temporal restraints on a theory of time.

What's wrong with stating entropy increases in a tenseless sense? After X, there exists more entropy.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:05:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.

The very first post of this thread explains it.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:09:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:05:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.

The very first post of this thread explains it.

"Under special relativity, no two events are absolutely simultaneous. According to relativity of simultaneity, the simultaneity of events is relative to the observer's motion and speed of observation. Each observer has a plane of simultaneity, a section of spacetime which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment."

This doesn't prove it.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:11:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:09:21 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:05:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.

The very first post of this thread explains it.

"Under special relativity, no two events are absolutely simultaneous. According to relativity of simultaneity, the simultaneity of events is relative to the observer's motion and speed of observation. Each observer has a plane of simultaneity, a section of spacetime which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment."

This doesn't prove it.

Do you mean that the relativity of simultaneity doesn't entail eternalism or that there is no proof given for the relativity of simultaneity?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:11:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:05:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.

The very first post of this thread explains it.

Furthermore, I'm curious, what experiment would falsify eternalism?
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:14:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:11:19 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:09:21 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:05:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.

The very first post of this thread explains it.

"Under special relativity, no two events are absolutely simultaneous. According to relativity of simultaneity, the simultaneity of events is relative to the observer's motion and speed of observation. Each observer has a plane of simultaneity, a section of spacetime which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment."

This doesn't prove it.

Do you mean that the relativity of simultaneity doesn't entail eternalism or that there is no proof given for the relativity of simultaneity?

How does the theory entail that the past exist and the present exists and the future exists? I don't see that it does. It's just an opinion as far as I can tell.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:15:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:11:46 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:05:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.

The very first post of this thread explains it.

Furthermore, I'm curious, what experiment would falsify eternalism?

If an experiment showed there is an absolute reference frame in spacetime would mean there are absolute facts about space and time. All states of time wouldn't be equally real.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:16:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:15:55 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:11:46 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:05:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.

The very first post of this thread explains it.

Furthermore, I'm curious, what experiment would falsify eternalism?

If an experiment showed there is an absolute reference frame in spacetime would mean there are absolute facts about space and time. All states of time wouldn't be equally real.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

How do you conduct such an experiment?
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:19:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:14:02 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:11:19 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:09:21 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:05:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.

The very first post of this thread explains it.

"Under special relativity, no two events are absolutely simultaneous. According to relativity of simultaneity, the simultaneity of events is relative to the observer's motion and speed of observation. Each observer has a plane of simultaneity, a section of spacetime which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment."

This doesn't prove it.

Do you mean that the relativity of simultaneity doesn't entail eternalism or that there is no proof given for the relativity of simultaneity?

How does the theory entail that the past exist and the present exists and the future exists? I don't see that it does. It's just an opinion as far as I can tell.

"The relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity " whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time " is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame."

Two events can happen at the same time, one before the other, or the other before the "before" depending on your reference point. All the events are relative so all of the temporal facts about them are equal. The past, present and future would all depend on your frame of reference, they'd be tenseless.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:21:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:19:08 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:14:02 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:11:19 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:09:21 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:05:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.

The very first post of this thread explains it.

"Under special relativity, no two events are absolutely simultaneous. According to relativity of simultaneity, the simultaneity of events is relative to the observer's motion and speed of observation. Each observer has a plane of simultaneity, a section of spacetime which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment."

This doesn't prove it.

Do you mean that the relativity of simultaneity doesn't entail eternalism or that there is no proof given for the relativity of simultaneity?

How does the theory entail that the past exist and the present exists and the future exists? I don't see that it does. It's just an opinion as far as I can tell.

"The relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity " whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time " is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame."

Two events can happen at the same time, one before the other, or the other before the "before" depending on your reference point. All the events are relative so all of the temporal facts about them are equal. The past, present and future would all depend on your frame of reference, they'd be tenseless.

Correct, they'd depend on the observer's frame of reference. So, I'm going to ask again, how does this prove that the past, present, and future is all equally real? You're missing a logical step.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:21:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.
There are four possible ontologies of time, presentism (only the "present" exists), growing block GB (only the past and the present exist), shrinking block SB (only the present and the future exist) and eternalism (past, present and future exist).

P1) If presentism/GB/SB is true, then which objects or events are real depends on which are past, present, or future. (from the definition of presentism/GB/SB)

P2) But which objects and events are past, present, or future depends on facts about which events are simultaneous with the here and now. (from the definitions of "past," "present," and "future")

P3) If the special theory of relativity is true, then which events are simultaneous with the here and now is a matter of one"s reference frame. (consequence of Special Relativity)

P4) The special theory of relativity is true.

P5) So, which events are simultaneous with the here and now is a matter of one"s reference frame. (by premises (3), (4), and modus ponens)

P6) So which objects and events are past, present, or future is a matter of one"s reference frame. (from premises (2) and (5))

P7) So if presentism/GB/SB is true, then which objects or events are real is a matter of one"s reference frame. (from (1) and (6))

P8) But what is real is not a matter of one"s reference frame. (Consequence of special and general relativity)

C1) Therefore, presentism/GB/SB is false.

P9) If there are events before, after and simultaneous with one's reference frame, then eternalism is true. (From the definition of eternalism)

C2) Therefore, eternalism is true.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:22:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:16:46 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:15:55 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:11:46 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:05:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.

The very first post of this thread explains it.

Furthermore, I'm curious, what experiment would falsify eternalism?

If an experiment showed there is an absolute reference frame in spacetime would mean there are absolute facts about space and time. All states of time wouldn't be equally real.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

How do you conduct such an experiment?

You'd first have to propose what the reference frame is. For example most thought it to be the Luminiferous aether, and we then we'd be able to test for the aether by using the Earth's motion (michelson morley experiment).
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:24:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:21:41 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:19:08 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:14:02 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:11:19 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:09:21 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:05:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.

The very first post of this thread explains it.

"Under special relativity, no two events are absolutely simultaneous. According to relativity of simultaneity, the simultaneity of events is relative to the observer's motion and speed of observation. Each observer has a plane of simultaneity, a section of spacetime which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment."

This doesn't prove it.

Do you mean that the relativity of simultaneity doesn't entail eternalism or that there is no proof given for the relativity of simultaneity?

How does the theory entail that the past exist and the present exists and the future exists? I don't see that it does. It's just an opinion as far as I can tell.

"The relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity " whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time " is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame."

Two events can happen at the same time, one before the other, or the other before the "before" depending on your reference point. All the events are relative so all of the temporal facts about them are equal. The past, present and future would all depend on your frame of reference, they'd be tenseless.

Correct, they'd depend on the observer's frame of reference. So, I'm going to ask again, how does this prove that the past, present, and future is all equally real? You're missing a logical step.

Because no state of reference is better than the other. A frame of reference in my future, in what I call the past or present are no better than someone's frame of reference where I am in the past.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 7:28:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 7:24:22 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:21:41 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:19:08 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:14:02 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:11:19 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:09:21 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 7:05:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:54:56 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:44:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/17/2015 6:41:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 10/17/2015 5:41:45 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Oh boy........ do people actually believe the only ontology of time compatible with science, as it is often promoted, would contradict science in any obvious way?

Is it falsifiable?

Since the most common argument in support of it relies on a specific scientific theory, relativity, yes, it very much is falsifiable.

How does this specific scientific theory prove eternalism? Be clear and concise.

The very first post of this thread explains it.

"Under special relativity, no two events are absolutely simultaneous. According to relativity of simultaneity, the simultaneity of events is relative to the observer's motion and speed of observation. Each observer has a plane of simultaneity, a section of spacetime which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment."

This doesn't prove it.

Do you mean that the relativity of simultaneity doesn't entail eternalism or that there is no proof given for the relativity of simultaneity?

How does the theory entail that the past exist and the present exists and the future exists? I don't see that it does. It's just an opinion as far as I can tell.

"The relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity " whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time " is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame."

Two events can happen at the same time, one before the other, or the other before the "before" depending on your reference point. All the events are relative so all of the temporal facts about them are equal. The past, present and future would all depend on your frame of reference, they'd be tenseless.

Correct, they'd depend on the observer's frame of reference. So, I'm going to ask again, how does this prove that the past, present, and future is all equally real? You're missing a logical step.

Because no state of reference is better than the other. A frame of reference in my future, in what I call the past or present are no better than someone's frame of reference where I am in the past.

What part of the theory says "no state of reference is better than the other" Furthermore, what does it mean to say a state is "better" than another state?