Pick your own debate - 1F

Thank you for your response. 1. Definition of Eternalism As I already stated, Eternalism is merely the idea that all things always exist. The ontology that Eternalism talks about should be evident in the clearer definition of Eternalism given [1]: "One version of Non-presentism is Eternalism, which says that objects from both the past and the future exist just as much as present objects. According to Eternalism, non-present objects like Socrates and future Martian outposts exist right now, even though they are not currently present." This is what I said, not what my opponent said. Eternalism is not what my opponent said, so all conclusions drawn from it are void. 2. A-Theory My opponent thinks that I am arguing for the B-Theory. However, I am arguing for the A-Theory. 1990 was regarded as the future, then it was regarded as the present, and now it is regarded as the past. Never again will it be regarded as the present, or the future. Therefore, it will never contradict itself. The A-Theory is based in A properties such as "being two days future, being one day future, being present, being one day past, etc." These descriptions would obviously be in relation to the present. When 1990 was the present, A properties were different for all times. It's kind of like being north or south relative to your current location. As your location changes, A properties change. What was once north becomes south. However, at no location would a thing be both north and south (unless you realize that the earth is round, but that doesn't apply to time). "Past," "present," and "future" are not ambiguous. Given the present, anything before that is the past, and anything after that is the future. As there is only one present at any given time, there is no ambiguity. To call them ambiguous would be like saying that because I can be both north of Mexico and south of South Dakota at the same time, I am contradictory, and therefore, we are all omnipresent. However, I am not omnipresent, because I am not in South Dakota, nor am I in Mexico. 3. Theory of Relativity My opponent states that there can be no objective measure of time, and therefore no objective present. However, as my example shows, at no point can any two observers be experiencing different presents at the same time. Therefore, because the present is the same for all, there is no subjectivity. If we need an objective measure, it would be a man-made measure like, "The half-life of one radioactive so-and-so isotope while moving at 0mph." Just because time can flow at different perceived speeds, doesn't mean that time will stop at different places for different observers. "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?" We've standardized length. We've standardized weight. We've standardized mass. Naturally, we have a nice reference point of 0mph at which the Theory of Relativity has a minimum effect. Therefore, we have a standard to which we can refer for all perceptions of time. Bingo. 4. Here and Now My opponent asks why I assume an ultimate spatial location of "here." This is because the latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of my location are the same, no matter where you are looking from. This reminds me of the geography terms of "absolute location" and "relative location" [2]. My latitude and longitude (and altitude) are absolute locations. Being north, south, east, west, whatever of another location is a relative location. Likewise, "now" is the absolute location in time, while the past is a relative location in time. My opponent claims that the Big Bang had no absolute location. However, the Big Bang supposedly started at "a single point" [3]. Where was this single point? Being a point demands that there was emptiness outside of the Big Bang. Where in this absolute emptiness was the Big Bang? That, my friends, would be the absolute spatial location of the Big Bang. Continue the analogy, and you arrive at the absolute temporal location of the Big Bang, and therefore, the absolute temporal location of the Universe. 5. Occam's Razor My opponent first criticizes my assumption of OR being a valid heuristic maxim, although he gives no reason why it cannot be assumed to be so. Secondly, he criticizes A-Theory's lack of evidential support, calling it inherently contradictory. However, I already stated that my Occam's razor argument only stands if my arguments in favor of A-Theory stand as well. This continues to apply here and now. 6. Parade Analogy Again, my opponent is banking on Eternalism being proven to be true. Seeing as I am banking on it not being proven true, this point is merely an extension of the primary conflict of Eternalism. 7. Results of Eternalism My opponent's conclusions for "Results of Eternalism" used a definition of Eternalism different from what it actually is, so naturally, the conclusions are void. 8. The Future In Round 2, I said: "He also states that instances in time are not connected to each other in any way, despite the fact that the future is an entity completely dependent on the present. My opponent will have the chance to criticize my arguments only if I actually post them here. How could the future not depend on the present?" He gave no response, dropping this argument. Since the future depends on the present, the state of what the past was, the present is, and the future will be, starts with the past, and slowly advances to the present, when we learn the state of the present, and continues towards the future. This is an obvious flow of time. 9. Big Bang Quoting my opponent, Round 3: "The Big Bang was literally the expansion of spacetime..." My opponent is basically implying that the Big Bang was the beginning of space, and that therefore, it did not have a spatial location. However, this also implies that it was the beginning of time, and that therefore, it did not have a temporal location. I've already explained why the Big Bang had an absolute spatial location and an absolute temporal location. This would obviously put the Big Bang at the beginning of space, and the beginning of time. As the resolution calls for a definite starting point in time, the Big Bang affirms the resolution. 10. Conclusion Although both my opponent and I seem to be misusing a few terms, the intent behind what we say should be clear. I have shown the terms of "past," "present," and "future" not to contradict themselves, as well as having shown that the Theory of Relativity is of no use to my opponent in this debate. I have shown time to be analogous to space, with absolute locations and relative locations. My Parade Analogy holds as long as time flows, and my opponent has conceded that time flows by ignoring the fact that the future is a dependent entity. Time flows, and it flowed from a definite starting point. 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...(geography) 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...