Presentism Is False

Either way, Con is new member, so I ask voters to let that one slide. Addressing My Opponent's Arguments "Present-ism is true since all events and entities that are wholly past or wholly future do not exist at all. So it is logical to assume that only the present exists. " - Con All Con does here is restate the presentist position (the position that the past and future do not exist). However, stating a position and defending a position are not the same. This just seems like a fallacy of presumption. "Some of the difficulties and paradoxes of presentism can be resolved by changing the normal view of time as a container or thing unto itself and seeing time as a measure of changing spacial relationships among objects; Thus observers need not be extended in time to exist and be aware, but rather they exist and the changes in internal relationships within the observer can be measured by stable countable events. " - Con In this debate I focus more on the scientific and metaphysical problems with Presentism, and the logical paradoxes which show that Presentism is logically impossible will not be included in my debate. This makes the above from Con rather trivial Argument In Favor Of The Falsehood Of Presentism My argument will actually be in the form of two arguments (or sub-arguments if you would like): Sub-Argument A: P1A: If retro-causality is a real phenomenon, the future is realP2A: Retro-causality is a real phenomenonCA: Therefore, the future is real Sub-Argument B: P1B: If the future is real, Presentism is falseP2B: The future is realCB: Therefore, Presentism is false The two sub-arguments arguments are logically valid Modus Ponens arguments[1]. This is evident as they both follow the "if p then q; p; therefore q" formula. The question that remains pertains to whether or not the premises are true, or at least sufficiently more plausibly true than their negation. Defense Of P1A P1A should be easy to establish, because if something happens "now" that is "retro-caused", then this could only happen if the future is real. Why is this so? Well, something that plays no part of reality or never has; has no causal ability. So if an effect occurs "now" that is "retro-caused", then this means that the cause exists in the future and must exist, or else the retro-causal relationship couldn't even take place. At any time retro-causality occurred, and included an effect that was a "now" at a certain point, the future was real and existed for that causal process to even have potential. If an effect occurred right "now" that was "retro-caused", that implies that the future exists. How could something that is non-existent, and never played a part in reality have causal powers? That's a metaphysical impossibility; it couldn't. It would be like saying the non-existent person sneezed. So, I think that P1A is way more than reasonable than its negation because an effect that is "retro-caused" "now" clearly implies the future. Defense Of P2A Recent delayed-choice experiments in quantum mechanics show retro-causality is a real phenomenon [2], and this result has been tested with extreme accuracy. Thus, P2A is scientifically justified. Defense Of P1B P1B is true by definition. Presentism is the view that only the present is real, so if the future plays a part of reality, then this self-evidently contradicts Presentism. Defense of P2B This premise is simply the conclusion to Sub-Argument A. Since I showed Sub-Argument A to be sound, then P2B is true by default. Conclusion I presented a logically valid argument (in the form of two sub-arguments) that shows presentism is false, and sufficiently supported the premises. Therefore, it follows that Presentism is false. The resolution has been established. Sources [1] . http://www.philosophy-index.com... [2] . http://www.popsci.com...