Pick your own debate - 1F

Thank you for responding. It looks like our science debate will turn out to be a philosophy debate. Here goes. Resolved: The universe probably had a definite starting point in time. 1. Eternalism My opponent chooses to define Eternalism as the idea that "terms such as present, past, and future are nonsensical." However, the definition first requires a look at the definition of ontology, which the definition of Eternalism states. From Merriam-Webster [1]: "A branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being" Eternalism is merely the idea that all things exist, regardless of whether or not they seem to have disappeared long ago or have not even appeared yet, which is merely a portion of the B-Theory that my opponent actually stated. 2. A-Theory I will agree that positions in time can be described by the B-Theory, but also that they can be described by the A-Theory. My opponent's only dismissal of the A-Theory is that a certain time (let's choose 1990) cannot be both future and past. However, this is incorrect. A-Theory states that at different times, 1990 would have different descriptions. In 1900, 1990 was the future. In 1990, 1990 was the present. In 2009, 1990 was the past. At no time was 1990 ever described with contradiction or incompatibility. 3. Theory of Relativity My opponent then brings up Einstein's Theory of Relativity. However, this does not contradict with A-Theory at all. At any given moment, two observers would observe any given moment in the same way. 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. Here's an example: You have two men. One man perceives 86,400 seconds every day (the time it takes for the Earth to rotate once), which is normal. The other man starts moving at near-light speeds at 0:00, and perceives 1,000,000 seconds every day. The Earth's rotation is a constant. Now, at 2:00, after the first man perceived 7,200 seconds and the second man perceived about 80,000 seconds, both men would say that 1:00 was the past, 2:00 was the present, and 3:00 was the future. At 3:00, after the first man perceived 10,800 seconds and the second man perceived about 121,000 seconds, they would both say that 2:00 was the past, 3:00 was the present, and 4:00 was the future. Nothing changes because of the Theory of Relativity. 4. North My opponent brings up "north" and "north to." Now, this just points out that there is no ultimate location of "north," or "south," or "east," or "west," or "up," or "down," or "past," or "future," but merely relations between locations. However, there is the ultimate spatial location of "here," so naturally, going by this spatial analogy, we have the ultimate temporal location of "now." Additionally, there was a spatial location of the Big Bang, the starting point in space of the universe. So, continuing the analogy, there was also a temporal location of the Big Bang, the starting point in time of the universe. 5. Occam's Razor My opponent has not successfully disproven the A-Theory, which, as Occam's razor states [2], is preferred over B-Theory because stating that things are how we perceive them is much simpler than an explanation as to why they aren't. 6. Parade Analogy First, to post the Parade Analogy, my own work: Say that you and numerous fellow men were marching due north on a completely flat plane at a steady rate of 1mph. You have no clue how long you've been marching, or where you came from. For all you know, you've been marching forever. One day, you and your fellows come across a jet, and you decide to take this jet due south at an amazing speed of 1000mph. The question is, will you come to the starting point of the parade? The answer must be yes, because the answer cannot be no. If you, with your 1000mph jet plane, never reach any kind of starting location at all, even travelling just short of forever, then how could you and your friends have possibly marched in the opposite direction at a slower speed? Now, just replace north and south with the future and the past, and imagine that time travel is possible, and you have your reason why an infinite time is impossible. My opponent's only defense is Eternalism, and his only justification for Eternalism is the lack of A-Theory, but there is no lack of A-Theory, as I have illustrated above. 7. Conclusion To summarize, there's a timeline of: t1...t2...t3...t4...t5...t6...t7...t8...t9...t10... Past --------> Present ----------> Future My opponent's only defense against this is the B-Theory, dubbed Eternalism, which is overly complex and dismissed by Occam's razor. 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? Therefore, with the A-Theory standing above Eternalism due to Occam's razor, and the Parade Analogy explaining the paradoxical situation of an infinite time, we must conclude that time probably had a definite starting point. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...