Convince Me

"Perhaps, but the question was rhetorical."Even a rhetorical question is not an argument. "Are you truly not convinced of a linear time?" No I am not, because according to Einstein time is not linear:"It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four-dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three-dimensional existence." - Albert Einstein [1]"As it turns out, it is actually impossible to find any objective and universally acceptable definition of “all of space, taken at this instant.” This follows … from Einstein’s special theory of relativity. The idea of the block universe is, thus, more than an attractive metaphysical theory. It is a well-established scientific fact." - Rudy Rucker [2]"Special relativity [by itself] appears to provide a definite proof of the block universe view." -Vesslin PetkovAccording to relativity, if you just went up in one direction forever you would eventually come back to where you started. Many physicists and philosophers of phyiscs do not believe time is linear. Thus, I have good reasons for why I am not convinced time is linear. "Together these comprise about 96% of the mass-energy content of the universe, yet they remain unknown entities."I fail to see what bearing this has in infinity. "There is no sound scientific evidence for an expanding universe..."Virtually the entire scientific community disagrees with you. Thus, I am not convinced."Because for the universe to be expanding, there needs to be a beginning point to when it started expanding."So? What does this have to do with anything?"If the universe had been expanding for an eternity, where would we be? The earth would be infinitely expanded, instead of expanding infinitely, because we would be stuck in a timeless space."The above makes no sense. I am not convinced by nonsense. "That is correct. It is logically incorrect for the universe to be here without a cause by an external, infinite being. "That is not what I said. I am not convinced by intellectual dishonesty from people putting words in my mouth."Without an external, infinite being, there would be a necessity of time."Says who? Bare assertions are not convincing."You cannot have a universe without an external source because it would be 'logically contradictory'."I see nothing contradictory in it. This is just a bare assertion. Thus, I am definitely not convinced.'We would need to necessitate time. And then for that, we'd need to necessitate more time. And it becomes either eternal, or a paradox, which is also logically impossible."This is self-refuting! The entire point of this debate was for you to convince me that theistic arguments for an infinite regress fail. You are endorsing the impossibility of an infinite regress above. "I do not know the mind of God."Well all (i) (ii) (iii) (iiii) are problematic. Those seem to be the only options so you dodging this question is a bad move. Thus, I am not convinced of a mind of God. I think it is logically impossible either way you look at it (that is a different debate though, you are here to convince me). "I can provide logical proof of an infinite being"Why don't you? So far all you have provided is...well, not much. ConclusionThe fact that many physicists and philospophers of physics are B-Theorists and because of relativity, this has me convinced that time being linear is not necessary. Thus, I am not convinced time is linear. Also, Pro's case is self-refuting. Pro is trying to prove that an infinite series is possible (this is what the debate outline entails), but is arguing that an infinite regress of time is paradoxal. Self-refuting arguments are not convincing. Sources[1] Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, 15th ed.pp. 150. [2] The Fourth Dimension, p. 149.