Pick your own debate - 1F

Thank you for this debate, Skeptic. It has been very interesting. 1. Definition of Eternalism Sorry for generalizing Eternalism so that all things always exist. It is that all things that ever exist always exist. My apologies. However, this is the only point my opponent makes against my definition of Eternalism, dropping most of his previous points based on a misinterpretation of Eternalism. 2. A-Theory My opponent seems to misunderstand the A series upon which A-Theory is based. The A series is made up of properties like "being two days future, being one day future, being present, being one day past" [1]. Naturally, as I write this, November 24 is two days future, November 23 is one day future, November 22 is the present, November 21 is one day past, etc. Just because these properties change over time, doesn't dismiss their belonging in the A series. The A series is entirely about comparing solely to the present, while the B series is used when relating two times not including the present. "Preposterous, 'present' is simply an indexical term. Can you demonstrate what present is?" Present is what is happening. "Can you demonstrate what past is?" Past is what has happened. "You can't without utilizing the B-Theory, which is counterproductive for this debate." Didn't use the B-Theory right there. 3. Theory of Relativity "I ask of you, can you define time ... WITHOUT using the concept of time in it?" Time is the dimension through which change occurs. If you think that that doesn't work, then I would challenge you to define length without the concept of length. Of course, this is the last round, so I can't. My opponent asks that I prove that time is objective, because he claims that the Theory of Relativity makes time seem subjective. However, even if two people perceive one object to be moving at different speeds, the object is still moving at only one objective speed. The error appears in the perception, kind of like how a drunk guy would view length as subjective. Or, one could look at the speed at which two people are driving on a racetrack. If one guy is going at 100mph, and the other guy is going at 1mph, the first guy will subjectively think that a lap is short, while the other guy long. Naturally, the track's length is not changing. 4. Here and Now "Firstly, it seems you are implying 'here' means where you're physical body is located. This is completely arbitrary..." Well, here is where I am located by definition. Here - in or at this place [2] This - the person, thing, or idea that is present or near in place, time, or thought [3] "As I said before, terms such as here and now are merely indexical, something I've been repeating many times with no answers." However, there is no relevance. Furthermore, in the dimension of time, this isn't even a problem, because at any one time, all are in the same time. Kind of like how at any one latitude, all are in the same latitude. 5. Big Bang My opponent's source actually disagrees with him. "This occurance[sic] was ... rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other." Filling all of space requires space to exist beforehand. "The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward." While this may seem to support my opponent's case, an "explosion of space within itself" requires space to exist prior to its exploding within itself, or else it could not explode within itself. Therefore, space existed prior to the Big Bang, and the Big Bang had an absolute location in space. 6. Occam's Razor "We aren't trying to choose among competing theories with similar if not equal evidential support; we are trying to figure out the evidential support itself!" Exactly. Occam's razor is what I have to lean back on after I expose the evidential support to be false. 7. Parade Analogy I'm not proving Eternalism false with the Parade Analogy. It's only function is to show that, after I've shown the evidential support to Eternalism to be false, and after I've shown OR to be against Eternalism, the resolution is completely affirmed. 8. Results of Eternalism Actually, the definition of Eternalism is solely the existence of all ever-existing objects forever. My opponent's initial conclusions about Eternalism misinterpreted the word "ontology" in his chosen definition, as I have shown. Now, just because the definition of rhombus can coincide with the definition of rectangle, doesn't mean that all rectangles are rhombuses or all rhombuses are rectangles. Additionally, my opponent made no move to prove Eternalism to be true under the true definition. "According to Eternalism, time is like a block..." No sources to support this Block Theory, or anything connecting Eternalism to Block Theory... "Yes the future is 'connected' to the present but only because they are the same time ontologically speaking." The future and the present are not the same time, not even by Eternalism's standards. Plus, the statement doesn't even make sense as a response to mine. I asked how the future could depend on the present. A block does not solve this. If the future is ontologically equal with the present, the actions of the present could not have influenced the actions of the future. "We only use terms such as past, present, and future because we have conscious, rational faculties that perceive the world to be like this." ...or more likely because the world is like this. "My opponent's argument fails mainly because of one reason: he doesn't fully understand the subject matter at hand." Well, at least I understand it well enough to know where my opponent does not. "He misconstrues the Big Bang..." This is what I conclusively showed my opponent to have done. "...fails to remember my critical points..." Funny, I fail to remember failing to remember critical points. I've gone over every argument every round, that's for sure. "...and even mistakenly uses my theory to prove his - an obvious folly." Although I may have used some things from the B series to support A Theory, this does not mean that I used B Theory. After all, the A series and B series can both exist. Therefore, there is no folly. In conclusion, I have the following eight points: 1. Eternalism is what I defined it as, not what my opponent defined it as. 2. My opponent dropped his argument that A properties are contradictory. 3. Although the Theory of Relativity makes time seem subjective, that doesn't actually make it objective. 4. At any one time, all things are in that one time. 5. The Big Bang had an absolute location in space, and an absolute location in time. 6. All else being equal (as I have demonstrated), Occam's Razor favors the idea that time flows as perceived rather than an explanation as to why it is not. 7. With Occam's razor favoring the idea that time flows, the Parade Analogy is valid and affirms the resolution. 8. Due to the future being a dependent entity, time cannot be a block. 9. Vote PRO! (Well, CON, really, even though the resolution was affirmed, because this debate is weird in that CON is affirming the resolution.) Well, Skeptic, this was a great debate. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank you. 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...