We have been critiquing Phillip Dennis’s claims that the one-way speed of light must be c in all directions. Einstein claimed that the one-way speed of light was merely a humanly stipulated convention, something that we get to choose in order to define what constitutes simultaneous events that are separated by some distance. Dennis disagrees but has been unable to construct a cogent argument for his claim that doesn’t beg the question. Why does Dennis disagree with Einstein on this issue? I suggested in my previous response to Dennis that it may stem from Dennis’s philosophy of presentism. But what is presentism? Is it a self-consistent, logical philosophy? Is presentism compatible with Scripture?
Presentism
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Presentism is the view that only present things exist.” However, there are two ways of interpreting the statement “only present things exist.” First, the statement might be taken to mean that only present things exist now. This interpretation might be driven by the word “exist” being in the present tense. But “now” is simply another word for the present. Interpreted this way, the statement reduces to a trivial tautology: “only present things exist in the present.” It’s certainly true, but trivial. We could equally well declare, “only past things existed in the past,” or “only future things will exist in the future.”
So, this form of presentism isn’t declaring anything profound. It is simply a rhetorical remark that the present is the present and is not the past or future. No one would disagree with this trivial version of presentism. This version does not deny the reality of past or future events; it merely claims that they do not occur now (in the present).
But there is a meaningful, non-trivial way of interpreting the statement. It could be taken to mean “only present things exist at all” (i.e. not just at the present time). In this form, the statement implies that past and future things do not exist in any sense – not just in the present. Thus, the past and future have no reality in such a view. In other words, “Only present things exist, have existed, or will exist.” We might call this interpretation strong presentism because it is not merely a trivial, rhetorical claim that only present things exist in the present. Rather, strong presentism denies the reality of past and future events.
But the strong version of presentism is clearly false. The Tabernacle of the Old Testament existed, but is not a present thing. Indeed, any past item or event that does not continue to exist in the present is a refutation of strong presentism. And although we do not know what the future holds, we do know that there will be future things, such as tomorrow’s sunrise (Genesis 8:22). Hence, the strong version of presentism is false.
For these reasons, most logicians and philosophers would argue that presentism is either trivial or false. It is trivial to say, “only present things have any present reality” and it is false to say, “only present things have any reality at all.” Thus, any non-trivial version of presentism is not something that a rational person can hold.
In contrast to strong presentism is the philosophy of eternalism.[1] Eternalism is the claim that the past, the present, and the future are equally real. I affirm this view. Eternalism does not conflate the present with the past or future. That is, the eternalist does not claim that “past things exist in the present” or that “present things exist in the future.” Rather, the eternalist embraces the reality of all three divisions of time.
Notice that eternalism is compatible with (and embraces) the trivial version of presentism. That is, affirming that only present things exist in the present does not deny that past and future things are also real. Since Dennis rejects and criticizes eternalism, it follows that he must hold to the strong form of presentism. Thus, logically he is denying the reality of past and future events. And it won’t do to say, “Dennis simply denies that past and future events exist in the present” because this reduces to the trivial form of presentism which is perfectly compatible with eternalism. Indeed, when strong presentism is challenged, its advocates often retreat to the trivial form – an equivocation fallacy.
Possible Arguments for Presentism
I have yet to see a cogent argument in favor of (strong) presentism. Advocates seem to resort to one of two attempts in its defense: arguing that presentism is intuitive, or arguing against eternalism (usually by straw-man fallacies). With regard to the first argument, presentism may seem intuitive because of our immediate contact with the present due to sensory experience. We live in the “now.” That is, we directly experience only the present. In contrast, we remember the past and we can only anticipate the future. In a sense, the past is gone and the future hasn’t happened yet. Thus, the present seems to have a special place in human perception.
But two objections immediately arise. First, human intuition is not a consistently reliable basis for believing something. Many scientific and theological truths are directly contrary to human intuition. Yet, it would be foolish to reject such truths in favor of our fallible expectations.
Second, in affirming that we directly experience the present, we are again being somewhat trivial. Such a statement merely affirms that we experience moments in time at the time we experience them. This was also true of past moments in time – we experienced them at the time we experienced them. And it will be true of future moments as well. So, it doesn’t really single-out any particular moment in time as special.
The second way presentists argue for their position is to attempt to criticize the alternative: eternalism. However, arguments against eternalism usually reduce to straw-man fallacies – misrepresentations of eternalism that conflate trivial presentism with strong presentism. For example, suppose a presentist claimed, “eternalists believe that all past things still exist.” But the word “still” is a synonym for “in the present.” And so, such a claim misrepresents the eternalist’s position. No eternalist believes that all past things continue to exist in the present. We simply affirm that past events actually happened – they are real events. Notice that the presentist’s argument equivocates the trivial version of presentism with the strong version.
Likewise, a presentist might falsely claim, “eternalists believe that the future already exists.” But again, the word “already” in this context means “at the present time.” Do eternalists believe that the future events exist at the present time? Of course not. Rather, we affirm that the future is real and that future things will exist. And as Christians, we recognize that God already knows everything that will happen in the future, even those things that are not happening in the present. And so, this again reduces to a straw-man fallacy.
Similarly, a presentist might claim, “eternalists believe that time does not flow or does not exist.” This too is a false, straw-man misrepresentation. Although some eternalists may wax poetic on our perceptions of the flow of time, time is obviously something that conscious temporal beings do experience. Remember, the definition of eternalism: the past, present, and future, are equally real. This is the claim that the presentist must refute without inserting straw-man arguments about other things that he thinks eternalists should also believe.
Which Philosophy is Biblical?
Biblically, is it the case that “only present things exist?” To exist is to be real, true, or actual, as opposed to fictitious, false, or imaginary. But what is the criterion by which we judge something to be true or real? Biblically, the answer is God. Truth is that which corresponds to the mind of God, and therefore something is true if it is something that God would say (John 17:17). This necessarily includes anything that God has said. And the Bible records what God has said. Therefore, we can refute (strong) presentism and establish eternalism if we can find statements in Scripture where God affirms past or future events as real. And of course there are many such instances in Scripture.
The most important past event is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is most assuredly a past event insomuch as Jesus is currently (in the present) at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1:3). But if only present things exist, have existed, or will exist, as strong presentism affirms, then the resurrection of Christ did not exist. If only present things are real, then the resurrection of Christ is not real, since it is not a present thing. “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). Thus, the Apostle Paul repudiates presentism. The reality of the resurrection of Christ is an essential Christian doctrine, yet it is a past event (with ongoing repercussions). So it is easy to see how (strong) presentism leads inexorably to heresy.
Furthermore, the Bible denotes the reality of future events such as the future general resurrection and the eternal state in which believers will enjoy eternal life. But the general resurrection is not a present thing. Therefore, if presentism is true, then the resurrection is not real. But the Bible affirms the reality of the future resurrection. Jesus said, “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth” (John 5:28-29a). It is ironic indeed that Dennis claims that eternalism has heretical implications when clearly the exact opposite is the case. Eternalism embraces both the past resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection of all people, even though neither event exists in the present. The eternal life we will enjoy in the eternal state is foundational to Christianity, but it is a future reality – one that is disallowed by any non-trivial interpretation of presentism.
I pointed this out in my previous refutation of Dennis’s claims. But he seems not to have understood that biblical eternalism is a subset of eternalism. That is, the future eternal state cannot exist if the future does not exist. Dennis responded, saying, “So, contrary to Lisle, the term eternalism is a philosophical term that pertains to one interpretation of time in SR; it has nothing to do with the redeemed enjoying eternal life.” On the contrary, the redeemed enjoying eternal life is a future reality – one that requires a real future which eternalism embraces and presentism rejects. Dennis continues, “Biblical eternalism is an example of a word salad. Lisle is engaging in fanciful rhetoric.” But in reality, it is a devastating, biblical refutation of Dennis’s philosophy of time. If only present things exist, then the eternal state cannot exist since it is not a present thing.
Not only are the past, present, and future equally real, they are equally known to God at all times. God has exhaustive knowledge of all future events and can declare them to us at any time with absolute certainty. This is difficult for humans to accept because our minds do not work that way. But it is one of the characteristics that separates God from false gods. The Lord says, “Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;”(Isaiah 46:9–10).
The above verses show that God has an eternalist view of time. He accepts that the past is real and encourages us to remember it: “Remember the former things long past.” The presentist might retort, “What former things long past? Only present things exist.” But he or she would be in error. Furthermore, God declares the end (future things) from the past. But future things and past things have no existence according to the presentist. God would be declaring nothing from nothing, which makes no sense. However we humans choose to view time, God is now and always immediately aware of everything that ever happened, everything happening now, and everything that will happen. God has exhaustive knowledge of time. Presentism attempts to rob God of this divine prerogative by insisting that the future and past have no existence.
And again, it won’t do to say, “Well, the presentist is simply insisting that the past and future don’t exist right now – in the present,” because this reduces to the trivial tautology with whom no one would disagree. The eternalist agrees with the Bible that past, present, and future are equally real because they are all affirmed by God, and are known exhaustively by Him. God is beyond time (e.g. Malachi 3:6; 2 Peter 3:8, Isaiah 46:9-10).
This is theologically important because only in an eternalist view of time can all the sins of all God’s people be paid for on the cross. Christ’s atonement pays for all sins – past, present, and future – for all His people (Isaiah 53:5-6, 8, 11; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 4:25). If presentism were true, then such atonement would not be possible. How can Jesus pay for sins that do not exist since they are not present things? How can Jesus pay for future sins if future things do not exist? If presentism were true, Jesus could only pay for present sins, since only present sins exist! And so we again see how presentism is incompatible with the Gospel. Clearly, any non-trivial form of presentism is contrary to Scripture.
Indeed, presentism is the view of time that is embraced by open theists. Open theism is the heresy that God does not know the future since it (allegedly) doesn’t exist. Dennis claims to deny open theism, but it is not clear how he can avoid that conclusion given his antibiblical view of time. Clearly, the biblical position is that all events in space and time are fully known to God, and indeed have been planned by Him from the beginning (e.g. Isaiah 46:9-11; Psalm 139:16; Acts 2:23).
Is Eternalism Fatalism?
The Scriptural teaching that God has exhaustive knowledge of all times (not just the present) is hard for our temporal and finite minds to comprehend. We don’t have knowledge of the actual future (except where God has revealed it); rather, we anticipate multiple hypothetical futures. We think of the future as open and undecided. After all, our present actions can cause future results. Do you want to weigh less in the future? Start a diet in the present. But if our present actions can shape the future, how can God possibly know the future exhaustively? And if the future is not determined, then how can God know it? Many people are so bothered by these questions that they would rather reject the clear teaching of Scripture and embrace a philosophy more congenial to human understanding (such as presentism and open theism).
Dennis seems to have fallen into this trap. He states, “But we need to expand on the implications of a completed static concrete object of spacetime extended in a spatialized time dimension (including all of history, past, and future) directly in an instant from the hand of God in the beginning. The first implication is that men have no free agency, their worldlines were completed and engraved in the immutable structure of spacetime. This is unalloyed fatalism.” No, it isn’t. This is a common error in reasoning often asserted by critics of Christianity. If God planned everything that happens, how can humans make free choices?[2] The obvious answer is that God’s plan includes human choices. This even includes sinful choices. God does not force us to act contrary to our desires in some sort of fatalistic way. Rather, God created us and used our free choices as part of the means by which He determined what the future would be (Ephesians 1:11; Romans 8:28). God ordains not only the ends, but the means as well.[3]
God knew every decision we would make before we made it (e.g. Psalm 139:4). And He used those decisions (including sinful ones) to shape the future exactly as He planned it (Romans 9:11). This is the clear teaching of Scripture and we see a spectacular example of this in the crucifixion of Christ. As the Apostle Peter explains, “this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (Acts 2:23). Yes, it was God’s “predetermined plan” for Christ to be crucified. Thus, it must happen. As Job pointed out two millennia earlier, “I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2). Yet God used the free, wicked actions of “godless men” to accomplish His plan – all for His glory.
So, did God plan from the beginning everything that will take place in time? Yes (Isaiah 46:10). And do people make free choices? Yes (Genesis 3:6). You can either accept these two biblical realities, or you can reject the biblical nature of time for something more intuitive (and false).
Dennis states, “That means their sins were engraved by God in the finished structure of spacetime.” Dennis rejects this position, but it is a direct teaching of Scripture. As David wrote, “Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them” (Psalm 139:16). Yes, God knew every sin that David would commit before David even existed. All the events of David’s life were “engraved by God” before David was ever born. And yet, David was still responsible for his own sins.
Dennis continues, “Thus, sin and evil were created directly from the hand of God.” No. God did plan that sin should come about, that He might show the riches of His glory to vessels of mercy (Romans 9:22-23). But God did not make David sin contrary to David’s will (James 1:13), nor does God ever approve of sin (Ezekiel 18:23). Dennis is confusing that which God plans with that which God approves and blesses. God did not approve of the actions of Joseph’s brothers, but he did plan it and brought good from it (Genesis 50:20). That God uses the free and sometimes sinful choices of people to accomplish exactly what He has determined is the consistent teaching of all Scripture.
Dennis then states, “Yet, God declared it good.” Ridiculous. God did not declare sin good. Rather, before sin had entered the world, “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31a). Note the verb tense.[4] God wasn’t addressing future events in spacetime (or future points in time). Rather, God was looking at His newly created universe as it existed at that time and declared it was very good. He knew that would change when Adam sinned, but God uses easily understandable temporal language for our benefit. Dennis has not represented the Scriptures accurately at all.
Is Presentism Logical?
We have shown that presentism is contrary to the Scriptures. But is it even a self-consistent philosophy? Is the proposition “Only present things exist” logically consistent? What is the present? The present is defined as the time the statement is made. So, if at 9:30 a.m. I say, “The sun is shining at present,” I mean “The sun is shining at 9:30 a.m.” On the other hand, if at midnight I say, “The stars are shining brightly at present,” I mean “The stars are shining brightly at midnight.” Furthermore, I don’t just mean any midnight, but rather midnight on the date I make the statement. This can lead to some equivocation fallacies since the word “present” actually refers to different times depending on when the statement is made.
Propositions are not just words, but the meaning conveyed by those words. When Jenny says, “Blue is my favorite color,” this is actually a different proposition from when Mike says, “Blue is my favorite color,” even though the words are identical. Jenny’s statement means “Blue is Jenny’s favorite color,” whereas Mike’s statement means “Blue is Mike’s favorite color.” The two propositions have entirely different meanings even though the words are the same. One could be true, while the other is false.
Likewise, we must ask whether presentism is a proposition, or is a combination of multiple propositions. If the latter, are these propositions mutually compatible? At 12:52 p.m., if I say, “only present things exist,” I mean “Only things at 12:52 p.m. exist.” But one minute later, if I say, “only present things exist,” I mean “only things at 12:53 p.m. exist.” Of course, that is a different proposition. And it is incompatible with the former proposition. Presentism at one time is not compatible with presentism at another time because they are two different propositions, each affirming the existence of only one time – and that time differs between those two propositions.
For example, when Dennis affirmed presentism in his first article published on July 10, 2024, by definition he was affirming “Only things on July 10, 2024 exist.”[5] One logical consequence of this proposition is that “things on November 20, 2024 do not exist.” Yet, when Dennis published his second article on November 20, 2024, he again attempted to defend presentism. But it is a different and incompatible presentism, because he was affirming “only things on November 20, 2024 exist” which contradicts his earlier position that “only things on July 10, 2024 exist.” It will be very tempting to equivocate to the trivial version and say, “Dennis was merely claiming that only things on July 10 existed on July 10.” But that is trivial and does not contradict the eternalist claim that the past, present, and future are equally real.
Presentism at one time is different and contradictory to presentism at any other time. Thus, presentism is not a coherent, self-consistent philosophy, but rather a series of incompatible propositions. If presentism asserts that only one time exists, then it must not continually change what that one time is. Otherwise, it commits the fallacy of moving the goalpost.
Is Presentism Consistent with Causality and the Flow of Time?
An additional casualty of embracing (non-trivial) presentism is that we would lose the concept of causality. Past actions have consequences in the present. But this could not be the case if the past is not real – if only present things have existed. Nor could the present have any effect on the future if the future doesn’t exist. (And no, I don’t merely mean that the future doesn’t exist yet – in the present. That’s trivial. Rather, the eternalist believes that the future is a real point in time that is affected by our present choices.)
Causality is defined as necessary succession. A given event A is said to have caused event B if event B happened after event A and necessarily had to happen after event A. But there can be no necessary succession within presentism because there can be no succession in presentism. Remember, presentism asserts that only one time exists – the present. But succession requires continuity between past events and present events. Such continuity between past and present cannot exist if the past does not exist. Event A (in the past) cannot cause event B (in the present) if “only present things exist.” There can be no past events if only present things exist. Likewise, present things cannot affect future things if “only present things exist.”
Causality and succession require us to consider real events that occurred at different times. But there cannot be real events at different times if “only present things exist.” And so we again see the absurdity of presentism when analyzed rationally.
One of the great ironies of presentism concerns the passage of time. Sometimes presentists will accuse the eternalist of denying the passage of time. This misconception is perhaps because the eternalist is willing to consider a God’s eye view of time in which we consider both future and past events. But no eternalist I know would deny that conscious temporal beings like ourselves perceive a passage of time, however we choose to describe that phenomenon. The irony here is that there could be no passage of time if presentism were true. Here is why.
We perceive the passage of time as our consciousness considers the present to occur at progressively later times, with earlier times accessible only by memory. Like the ticks of a clock we perceive one second, then the next, and so on. This requires multiple times to be real. We can only move from one second to the next if both seconds actually exist. But presentism denies the existence of any past or future events. There cannot be successive ticks of a clock if only one time exists – the present. We perceive time to flow from the past to the present to the future. But no such flow can exist if future and past times do not exist.
Conclusions
The above two sections are by no means the only examples of the irrationality of presentism. Nor are they intended to anticipate and respond to every possible rescuing device a presentist can invent. But hopefully they show at a layman level why presentism is not a well-thought-out position. We also clarified what the eternalist actually believes, rather than misconceptions of that position. And the above discussion might help us to anticipate and identify errors made by presentists when they misrepresent what their opponents actually claim. We have seen that any non-trivial version of presentism is simply incompatible with Scripture, which should be our most important consideration. Now that we have a foundational knowledge of the issues, in the next article we will examine Dennis’s claims regarding presentism and eternalism to see if they stand up to scrutiny.
[1] There are views in addition to presentism and eternalism such as growing block theory (which posits that only the past and present are real). However, since neither Dennis nor I hold such views, they will not be addressed here.
[2] I do not refer to free choices in a soteriological sense. I agree with Scripture that unbelievers are slaves to sin – not free. Rather, I simply mean that we can chose a favorite color, what to eat, how to spend our time, and so on without external compulsion. We are influenced by the world and by our genetic constitution, but we nonetheless have some degree of freedom in the choices that we make.
[3] We finite creatures are incapable of such computations. But there is nothing illogical or contradictory about an all-powerful, all-knowing God using the choices of His creations to accomplish exactly what He plans.
[4] The Hebrew verb from is the qal perfect, which generally denotes a completed past action.
[5] To be precise, the “present” refers to the exact time he wrote the sentence, which is earlier than the publication time. But since we have only the publication date, it will have to suffice.