Pick your own debate - 1F

However, it seems in multiple instances that he doesn't seem to understand my argument, or at least an important part of it. Because of several of these mishaps, it has led to his downfall. ==================== Defending Eternalism ==================== Since my opponent has broken up his response via a numbered categorization, I will follow the same pattern for the purpose of convenience and clarity. However, I will extract his three last points and put them in the following section for the purpose of convenience and clarity once again: 1. Definition of Eternalism My opponent could not be more wrong about what Eternalism means. For what reason does he conclude that it is "merely the idea that all things exist, regardless of whether or not they seem to have disappeared long or have not even appeared yet"? He states this stems from the definition of ontology, but this is a complete non sequitur. Ontology is concerned with the nature and relations of being, and the philosophy of time is undoubtedly a sub-category of this. Eternalism has more to do than just with the existent of beings; it focuses on the nature of time. And it never dictated that all things exist, but rather that the past, present, and future are ontologically equal. From whence my opponent got his interpretation I'm not sure, but it's heavily misguided. 2. A-Theory My opponent's defense of the A-Theory of Time betrays his own lack of understanding on the theory. To counter my accusation that A-Theory is inherently contradictory due to the problem of incompatible properties he states that 1990 can be both the future and past relative to different times -- unfortunately for him this is what the B-THEORY ADVOCATES, NOT THE A-THEORY. A-theory orders events in time via non-relational singulars, such as "past, present, future". On the other hand, B-Theory orders events in time in dual relationships, with terms such as "before than". My opponent's defense of A-Theory ironically employs the B-Theory, and defeats the whole purpose of this argument. This is a problem my opponent needs to address; not only the fact that there are incompatible properties inherent in the A-Theory, but that A-Theorists have no solution to the fact that terms such as "past", "present", and "future" are irrevocably ambiguous. 3. Theory of Relativity My opponent's defense against the argument from simultaneity is once again misconstructed. He states that "although one observer may be perceiving time at a different rate than the other person, at any given moment in time, they would both be observing from the same time. " True, his example can hold in which two observers are having different experiences of time but still mentally adjudicate a standard of time. However, his counterexample misses the entire point: First, my opponent doesn't seem to realize that the concept of simultaneity is supposed to address the subjective nature of how we standardize time, and how ultimately there can be no objective standard of time in which we can label something as the present. It brings into the light the fact that time CAN be perceived differently, which exposes a hole into the thinking that time has some objective flow of which we can tap into. My opponent's example has both observers referring to some alternative measure of time, but this begs the question -- how does my opponent come to suppose that method of modeling time effectively standardizes time? 4. Comparison between north and present My opponent agrees that there is no ultimate location of north, south, etc. but awkwardly states that there is an "ultimate spatial location of here". He assumes this to be true, but the glaring word is WHY? His response here is so empty that there really isn't any progress on my arguments to be made here - he simply made a bare assertion without any rationale behind it. And to touch on a more minor issue, there was NOT a spatial location of the Big Bang; this is scientifically misleading. The Big Bang was literally the expansion of spacetime; it didn't have a spatial location because it was the expansion of space! 5. Occam's Razor As some in the comment sections would share, this is quite the funny argument. Not because it's humorous in subject matter, but because it's use is such an abuse that is unfortunately common to many who are only superficially familiar with Occam's Razor (OR). If we are to assume OR is a valid heuristic maxim (my opponent simply assumes it to be true, a big no-no), it would still not apply to this situation for a simple reason: my opponent hasn't fulfilled all the conditions. OC states that the competing theories must be equal in all respects, which includes EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT. You can have a much simpler explanation than me, but if it has no evidence in support of it while mine does then it is my theory which should be supported. And what do we have to say about A-Theory? Well my previous arguments have shown it to be inherently contradictory - that is obviously a lack of evidential support. 6. Parade Analogy A rebuttal here is quite simple: it fails because it assumes time has a flow. In fact, I've said this in my argument and it seems my opponent has either ignored this or failed to address it. Let me copy paste for you: "Some would argue, especially my opponent stemming from his previous debate, that an infinite past is incohereble because it would take an infinite amount of time to reach NOW. If he were to argue via this path, then he'd be seriously misunderstanding Eternalism. It is precisely point that there is no flow of time - this is merely an illusion caused by our consciousness. Therefore, any talk of "reaching the present" betrays a lack of understanding on the speaker's part. " ==================== Results of Eternalism ==================== Since my opponent hasn't said anything about this section, then it must be assumed that if Eternalism is correct, the resolution is effectively negated. If this connection is granted, then the focus should simply be directed towards the former section; the validity of Eternalism itself. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's argument are racked with misunderstandings of not only B-Theory but A-Theory as well. Furthermore, his abuse and misuse of Occam's Razor is painstakingly clear. It should be evident that it is much more philosophically plausible to say that time does have an infinite past because it's more like a "block" instead of a flow of time.