B-THEORY OF TIME DEBUNKED

B-THEORY OF TIME DEBUNKED

B-theory of time states:

1. All Events are Real and Eternal.
2. Time is tenseless. There isn't a difference between past, present and future i.e. they are all equally real.
3. Flow of time is a byproduct of consciousness. It is an illusion. It doesnot actually exist.
4. Time is eternal.

Defining Eternal:1)Existing without a beginning and Without an end.
2)Existent since Eternity Past (Necessary existent).
3)Uncreated.
4)Not dependent on any external cause.
6)Always existent
5)The mind absolutely doesnot accept its non-existence.

Relevance:While having discussion with an atheist, when the argument for the existence of a creator was mentioned (Link), , this topic was brought up by him where he stated
"Also, since we are in a block universe, the motion of your finger existed long before you got around to moving your finger. The movement did not begin to exist, you reached the point in time where it has always existed".


What he failed to read is the same argument stated this:
"The argument presupposes two matters that we believe are beyond debate. We will thus not engage in attempting to ‘prove’ these two issues. Instead, we would rather not discuss with anyone doubtful in these two issues. They are very obvious:

1. Firstly, the real existence of beings, attributes and events we observe in the world. Our direct observation of them is sufficient in acquiring knowledge of their real existence.

2. Secondly, the principle of non-contradiction. It is not possible for two directly opposing propositions to both be true, and likewise for both to be false. Necessarily, one will be true and the other will be false. Similarly if a proposition leads to contradiction – and we are able to demonstrate this – its opposite will need to be accepted as true on this basis alone. It is not warranted for someone to claim we have not proven our point, if we were successful in demonstrating contradiction within its opposite. Yes. If an opponent wants to contest our disjunction, claiming a third option is possible, they are free to do so. "

 Personally speaking, i shouldn't have delved into the discussion in the first place with anyone denying (1) and (2).

Denying (1) entails:

Mereological Nihilism:
is the view that there are no composite objects. It is important that we address this before moving forward. Some atheists attack the premise "Everything that begins to exist must have cause" by making a claim "Nothing ever begins to exist. It is simply a rearrangement of pre-existing matter or matter that was always existent." That is to say all that exists is a mere rearrangement of matter that always existed. So in fact, there are no cars, chairs, horses,dogs or people. Therefore his denial of "things began to exist" isn't an affirmation that the atheist always existed but it is the acceptance of his non-existence i.e. he never began to exist in the first place.

We will demonstrate how this holds true when debunking B-theory of time.
Extreme form of relativism or Sophistry:This is an extreme form of relativism or sophistry, where a person claims to doubt everything, even sometimes his or her own existence. Since they thereby doubt the existence of proofs, arguing with them is a useless activity.

Doubting the real existence of "change" or claiming it is a byproduct of consciousness:
Instead, they are handled by putting them in a situation where they are forced to admit the certain existence of sensory reality. An example of how this can be done, is saying to them, “I will not discuss anything with you until you admit that you are certain that we are speaking to one another.” A slightly harsher way is to throw some cold water in their face, and when they complain say, “you mean the water you are not certain exists thrown in the face you are not certain exists by a person you are not certain exists?”

We will demonstrate how this holds true when debunking B-theory of time.


Denying (2) entails:

Closing the doors of logic and rational principles. Since this topic was brought up again & again by the atheist, i felt the need that it should be responded to or debunked in a rational and coherent way.
B Theory of time:

1. All Events are Real and Eternal.
2. Time is tenseless. There isn't a difference between past, present and future i.e. they are all equally real.
3. Flow of time is by product of consciousness. It is an illusion.
4. Time is eternal.

Let's Take an example and apply the model given above on Jack who is a human being. He lived for 76 years and died from a heart attack.

Application of B-theory Model proposed by Atheists:

1)Jack is an event who is eternal. (Always existent)
2)Him being alive is an event which is eternal (Always existent)
3)Him being not alive (dead) is an event which is eternal. (Always existent).

Debunking the following premises:

1. All Events are Real and Eternal.
   
2. Time is tenseless. There isn't a difference between past, present and future i.e. they are all equally real.

How can two exact opposite states be always existent at the same time?

States pertaining to Jack's existence:

1)Alive.
2)Not Alive.

How can these two states of existence pertaining to Jack be "always existent" at the same time? This is a violation of law of non-contradiction.
If someone opposes by saying "They do not exist at the same time but at different times"Then he has just debunked his own premise namely "All Events are Real and Eternal".
Moreover, the charge of violation of law of non-contradiction, cannot not be removed. It is a rational necessity that he is violating law of non-contradictions by affirming the reality of two contradictory states as REAL EVENTS that are always existent (Eternal).
1)Eternally Alive. (Eternal).
2)Eternally Not Alive (dead).  (Eternal).

Since being alive is an event, and is an attribute (state) pertaining to the Jack whose existence is deemed Eternal based on the theory proposed by the atheist, then by rational necessity, "Eternally Alive" MUST BE TRUE. What that means is that its opposite becomes an "intrinsic impossibility".

On the other hand if he holds "Eternally not alive (dead)" to be true then by rational necessity, it becomes "MUST BE TRUE". What that means is that its opposite becomes an "intrinsic impossibility".If something is deemed eternal then what ever is attributed to it, by rational necessity would  be eternal and therefore it MUST BE TRUE:
1) If being eternally alive is held to be true then its opposite becomes an intrinsic impossibility i.e. it can never be held to be true and must be false. Since the opposite is intrinsically impossible it effectively debunks the premise that All events are Eternal and Real as holding this premise to be true would mean entertaining the existence of its opposite (being eternally not alive (dead)) as well, which was deemed as intrinsically impossible and this is absurd because "intrinsic impossibility" cannot ever be existent by definiton.

2) If being eternally not alive (dead) is held to be true then its opposite becomes an intrinsic impossibility i.e it can never be held to be true and must be false. Since the opposite is an intrinscially impossible it effectively debunks the premise that All events are Eternal and Real as holding this premise to be true this would mean entertaining the existence of its opposite (being eternally alive) which was deemed as intrinsically impossible and this absurd because "intrinsic impossibility" cannot ever be existent by definition. .
This does not meant that it is impossible to propose the idea of its existence. This is because the proposal only requires putting words together to form a descriptive sentence, such as: “the spherical ball is perfectly cubical.” It is just that when one analyzes the meaning behind the words, one ends up with an absurdity. For example, the expression: “The round circle is a perfect square” is a grammatically sound sentence. It does not, however, have a sound meaning. Its proposition is impossible, because it expresses a contradiction of terms.States pertaining to Jack:
1) Alive. (Eternal).
2) Not Alive (dead). (Eternal)
Those who deny that change doesn’t exist outside of mind say the two states are “simply” existent eternally then:
It is a self-refuting claim to make that the two contradictory states pertaining to Jack's existence are "Eternal" and "Real" because:

1)Change is intrinsically impossible in something that is deemed eternal. (The opponent also states that change is a byproduct of consciousness. It doesn't exist in reality).

2)Since change is intrinsically impossible and the existence of Jack is held to be eternal by the opponent, it is a rational necessity that both states pertaining to Jack's existence MUST BE TRUE and ETERNAL and this is a contradiction because,

3)Holding BOTH TO BE TRUE is a violation of law of non-contradiction.

4)If someone says only one state is eternally existent, then the other one would be intrinsically impossible (a rational absurdity) and this contradicts observed reality i.e. Jack did die or Jack did live.

This is known as the proof by contradiction in logic and it is one of the strongest proofs.


In an attempt to reject this, one might say " “states” is a byproduct of consciousness. They are not events".
The following questions must the be asked:

1) Is Jack Alive in reality?
2) Is Jack not Alive (Dead) in reality?

Holding (1) and (2) to be true is a violation of law of non-contradiction. Holding (1) and (2) to be false is a violation of law of non-contradiction.
One might raise “the false dichotomy flag” saying “ Both alive and dead are not events. They never exist in reality. They do not apply to Jack.”

But clearly Jack is at two different states of existence. Him being alive is one state and him being dead is another state.

If you deny this, then by rational necessity you would have to deny the existence of Jack himself. After all what is Jack if his both states of existence are non-existent in reality?
(Mereological Nihilism)

If someone says incredulously "No. Both of these states are byproduct of illusion, they donot exist in reality"

Fair enough! This brings us to our next argument.


Flow of time is a byproduct of consciousness (illusion):


1)Some proponents of B-therory state "Events are eternal and they are also infinite in number".
2)Some propnents of B-theory state "Events are eternal individually but they are finite in number."

Both claims are essentially self-refuting and debunk the premise "Flow of time is a byproduct of consciousness."

1)Events are eternal and they are also infinite in number"Infinite series of events (without a beginning and without an end) cannot be concluded (Flow of time) and what the means is a particular illusion pertaining to a reality one is observing CANNOT ever happen. So the flow of time being an illusion is an intrinsic impossibility if the premise "Events are eternal and they are also infinite in number"

2)Some propnents of B-theory state "Events are eternal individually but they are finite in number."If the event is held to be Eternal (without a beginning and without an end), it is rationally impossible that we would observe(flow of time)  such an event  as coming to non-existence (Movement in a stationary finger does not exist) or beginning to exist (Movement of the finger "beginning to exist") even as an illusion. So flow of time being an illusion is intrinsic impossiblity if the premise "Events are eternal individually but they are finite in number".

What this means is Atheist's denial of "existence of states in reality" also mandates denial of "states as an illusion " based on his b-theory of time. And what that means is whatever change of states that we observe are non-existent both in reality and even as an illusion. (Sophistry)

Last but not the least, someone might contest by saying "It seems that you think that a street begins to exist when you turn onto it. The street existed before you got to it, and continues to exist when you leave it. The street is the event, and consciousness is the car driving down the street. The street did not begin to exist when the car began to drive down it. The events are like the beginning of a street that never began to exist, a beginning to a street is a place where you can turn onto it. You don’t cause the street to exist by turning onto it. It exists eternally.

I am talking about where a thing begins to stretch across an eternal dimension, like a road stretching across space. You are talking about things beginning to exist. If I say that the road begins at a certain location, am I saying that it began to exist?

No, as in that road never began to exist, it just has an entrance and an exit. The entrance to the road is where it begins, and the exit is where it ends. You drive from one end to the other, but the road never began to exist."

This stems from lack of understanding of the term "Eternal".
But before we delve into that, we must disprove what the atheists are charging us with i.e equivocation fallacy pertaining to the term beginning. We don't say "just because the street has a beginning (read: entrance) and an end (read: exit) therefore it began to exist (contingent) on this basis alone."

When we use the terminology "beginning" it implies "beginning to exist, or coming into existence" and we are not equating our meaning of the "beginning" with that of the "beginning"(entrance) of the street.
But this doesn't change the fact that the street is contingent:

1.) The very fact that the street has an entrance and an exit point proves that it has a limit. And it is intrinsically impossible that something "Eternal" has a limit. Why? Because every limit requires specification in terms of "what" and "how" it would be. This makes the street intriniscally possible (contingent) in existence. In otherwords, it is rationally possible that the street in question could have had a different entrance and a different exit point. There is nothing irrational about this. By different we mean its entrance and exist could be extended or reduced in either direction. Our direct observation of this is sufficient to prove this. (Anyone who denies "change" would still have to embrace the fact that the same street would then exist in two states of existence (despite denying change) and he would have to solve the contradiction listed in (2).
And this proves that what is in need of specification is never "Eternal" to begin with.

2) A particular street is subjected to all kinds of changes. And it is intrinsically impossible that something that is deemed "Eternal" is subject to changes. Even if the atheist denies "occurance of a change" and says this is a byproduct of subconsciousness, he wouldn't be able to deny the existence of different states of the street in question.

Consider the following example:
A car "crosses" this street.
An atheist may say this "crossing (change)" is a byproduct of consciousness. It doesn't exist in reality. But he wouldn't be able to deny that "there is a car on that particular street".
If he denies the existence of a car as well by saying "the existence of car is an illusion as well"

We would ask "what makes you think "existence of the street in question" is an event- i.e. a reality and the car is an illusion when the only difference between them is that they both have different limits (in terms of size, shape, texture, colour e.t.c)?"
"Did you reach this conclusion through deduction or empericism?"

Clearly it could never be via empericism because it cannot differentiate between both of them in terms of illusion and a reality. In fact it confirms the existence of both.

If he denies by saying "that there was never a car on the street and it is a byproduct of consciousness" Our reply would be "What makes you think that the street in question is an event- a reality when it could be a byproduct of consciousness similar to your illusion of a car present on that street? How did you come to the conclusion that the street is a reality but the car being present on it isn't?"

"Did you reach this conclusion through deduction or empericism?"
Clearly it couldn't be empericism because it actually confirms that there is a car on the street.An atheist will offer the following solution " You reached a point in time where the car is always existent on the street".

We would say "Fair enough but you also hold the street as an eternal (always existent) event. What about the state pertaining to the street when there was no car on the street. Surely that is an event as well?

He would say "Yes that state is an event and was always existent. You reached a point in time when there is no car on the street."
Clearly then street has two states that are always existent.And this brings us to our argument:
1)There is no car on the street. (Eternal event).
2)There is a car on the street. (Eternal event).

Since all the events are real, eternal and always existent, and the time is tenseless (according to b-theory of time), holding both (1 and 2) of these to be true becomes a rational necessity, and this is self -refuting because it violates the law of contradiction.

If the atheist deems the "events" or "time" to be that like the "street with an entrance and a beginning" then he has simply shot himself in the foot because "If the events are really like that then they are not "Eternal" by definition but only contingent.


All three premises of B-theory have been debunked, therefore by rational necessity deeming Time to be eternal in the sense of B-theory has been proven to be an absurd proposition.

Time being eternal in the sense of A-theory has also been debunked. (Link)

And this brings us to our final solution that we mentioned at the beginning:

Instead, they are handled by putting them in a situation where they are forced to admit the certain existence of sensory reality. An example of how this can be done, is saying to them, “I will not discuss anything with you until you admit that you are certain that we are speaking to one another.” A slightly harsher way is to throw some cold water in their face, and when they complain say, “you mean the water you are not certain exists thrown in the face you are not certain exists by a person you are not certain exists?”