In the previous article, we examined the concept of presentism – the belief that “only present things exist.” We found that there are two versions of presentism, two ways of interpreting the claim: a trivial version and a strong version. The trivial interpretation merely insists that only present things exist in the present. No one would disagree with that. The strong version claims that only present things exist at all – in other words, “only present things exist, have existed, or will exist.” The strong version is clearly false and antibiblical. There are past things that have existed that no longer exist, such as the Tabernacle. And there are future things that will exist but do not exist in the present, such as tomorrow’s sunrise.
In contrast to (strong) presentism is eternalism – the view that the past, present, and future are equally real. Phillip Dennis apparently embraces the strong version of presentism because he explicitly denies eternalism.[1] But can he provide a rational argument against eternalism? As we showed previously, most arguments against eternalism misrepresent the position by claiming that eternalists don’t believe in time or that we don’t acknowledge the division of time into past, present, and future. Such an argument constitutes the strawman fallacy. They might insist that eternalists believe that past things still exist. But “still” means “in the present.” Eternalists do not confuse past with present. So this is a strawman fallacy.
Furthermore, presentists sometimes conflate the trivial versions of presentism with the strong version. When challenged with the fact that past events really happened, they might retreat to the trivial version and respond, “Yes, but they don’t exist now.” Well, no one said they exist now – in the present. We all agree that only present things exist in the present – that’s trivial. We merely maintain that the past has real existence as the past and that the future has real existence as the future. Past, present, and future are equally real because they all correspond to the mind of God and are equally known by Him.
We will now examine Dennis’s arguments against eternalism to see if they are sound. Do they mispresent the eternalist claim that past, present, and future are equally real? Do they conflate trivial presentism with strong presentism?
Dennis’s Arguments Against Eternalism
Dennis states, “So, what exactly is eternalism in SR? It is the philosophical belief in a real block universe (now called spacetime) in which there is no passage or flow of time.” Immediately we see the strawman fallacy – a misrepresentation of eternalism. Do I deny the passage or flow of time? Of course not! Can Dennis find any article, book, or technical paper in which I declare that “there is no passage or flow of time”? No, he cannot. And yet he accuses me of believing in such an absurdity so that he can then refute his made-up caricature of my position. But that is illogical, unethical, and far from an actual refutation of what I actually believe.
I will grant that some eternalists wax poetic about the nature of time. But no one would deny that human beings perceive a passage of time regardless of how we might choose to represent it mathematically or on paper. We might represent this passage of time as a “worldline” in a spacetime diagram. And that diagram does not change. But it represents the continuity between past, present, and future events. That real continuity as we ascend the worldline is what we refer to as the passage of time.
Dennis continues to claim that in eternalism, “there is no present.” This again is false. It is a misrepresentation of eternalism. Who would deny the present? In a spacetime diagram, the present is all points where t = 0. The fact that the eternalist also believes in a real past and a real future doesn’t imply that we deny a real present. We embrace all three divisions of time in contrast to the presentist who acknowledges only the present.
Dennis states, “All events past and future exist timelessly and statically in a four-dimensional Minkowski space.” Again, this is false. Perhaps Dennis is confusing actual time with our representation of time in a spacetime diagram. A spacetime diagram may be static in terms of how we look at it at any moment of our time. But it does represent real time, usually along the vertical axis. That’s what the t-axis is in a spacetime diagram!
Dennis states that in the eternalist view of spacetime, “Nothing happens.” This is ridiculously false. All eternalists recognize that things happen – otherwise there would be no need for spacetime diagrams! Spacetime diagrams record the location and time of events – things that happen.
He continues, “The fact that Lisle admits his full throated belief in a concrete Minkowski spacetime and that time travel to the past is hypothetically possible is an explicit presupposition that the past is still there, even now.” This too is completely false in two ways.
First, Dennis falsely claims that I believe that time travel to the past is hypothetically possible. Here is what I actually wrote in my book The Physics of Einstein: “Unrestrained time travel into the past is simply not possible because it inevitably leads to the possibility of contradiction” (Lisle 2018 p. 112, emphasis added). Again, I wrote, “We conclude that unrestrained time travel into the past is false” (Lisle 2018 p. 112, emphasis added). Why does Dennis claim that I believe the exact opposite of what I have explicitly written in the book he is supposed to be critiquing?
Moreover, notice the other strawman fallacy in Dennis’s claim. He claims that the eternalist believes “that the past is still there, even now” (emphasis added). But words like “still” and “now” are synonyms for the present! So he is claiming that eternalists believe the past is the present – which is clearly absurd. No eternalist believes that. Notice that Dennis is subtly conflating strong presentism with trivial presentism, as if eternalists deny that only present things exist in the present. Eternalists do not conflate past, present, and future. Rather, we embrace the reality of all three without conflating them.
Dennis continues to claim “[eternalists believe] that the past is still there and indeed also that the future is already here” (underline added). This again is an egregious strawman fallacy. The words “still” and “already” both mean “in the present.” Do eternalists believe that past events and future events occur “in the present”? Of course not! Rather, we affirm that such events are real. Dennis again shows that he doesn’t have the slightest idea what eternalism is.
Dennis next states, “What are you doing now? I believe you will say that you are reading this reply to Jason Lisle. But is there a now? Eternalists, such as Lisle, say no” (emphasis in the original). This again is a ridiculous strawman fallacy. Dennis is simply lying about my position, and I challenge him to produce any evidence that I deny there is a “now.” What the physics of Einstein shows is that different observers will have different definitions of “now” as extended to distant regions of space. This is known as the relativity of simultaneity and is demonstrated in chapter 7 of The Physics of Einstein (Lisle 2018). It is clear that Dennis does not understand this basic tenet of the physics of Einstein because it is incompatible with presentism, as will be shown in an upcoming article.
Dennis continues, “What you are doing now is in the future as I now compose this reply. And that is now in the past as you now read it” (emphasis in the original). I agree with the sentiment, but I wonder if Dennis realizes that the four instances of “now” in his sentence do not all refer to the same time. This is one of the problems with presentism; the present can refer to different times depending on when the statement is made. Hence, it is not a self-consistent philosophy. This was covered in the previous article.
Dennis then states, “But to an eternalist, these are just relational. I am still writing this paper, and you were reading the paper even as I wrote it.” Again, we get the standard strawman fallacy claiming that eternalists confuse past, present, and future. That is simply false. I do not claim that Dennis is “still writing this paper” because “still” means “in the present.” Rather, I believe that Dennis’s past writings are just that – in the past. But they are real. They actually existed. If strong presentism were true, then Dennis’s past writing never existed because it is not a present thing. Again, Dennis is confusing the strong version of presentism (which is incompatible with eternalism) with the trivial fact that only present things exist in the present (which all eternalists accept).
Dennis continues, “You think there is passing of time, but you are mistaken. Time is an illusion according to Einstein’s interpretation of relativity.” This again is a strawman fallacy in which Dennis takes a nonliteral writing literally. It is no different from critics who pull Scriptures out of context to claim that God is literally a rock (e.g., 1 Samuel 2:2).
In particular, Dennis quotes Einstein’s letter to the family of a recently departed friend, “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That signifies nothing. For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Einstein is clearly being nonliteral here, since he was well aware that past, present, and future are not the same. He was not writing a physics treatise on the nature of time but was rather attempting to comfort a grieving family. Yet Dennis takes this literally as if Einstein were giving a lecture on physics and literally denied the distinction between past and present. This is simply dishonest.
Ironically, Dennis states, “This philosophy is scarily close to the Hindu philosophy of maya—’that which is not’ or an illusion. For the eternalist, time is maya.” The absurdity of this strawman argument is obvious. Eternalists embrace time in all its aspects – past, present, and future. Rather, it is the presentist that dismisses past and future events as maya since (in his view) only present things exist!
Dennis continues, “We close with some questions for the eternalists. First, we might ask, ‘How did the universe “arrive” at “now”?’ This is a meaningless question for the eternalist.” On the contrary, it is meaningless for the presentist. After all, in presentist view there is only now since “only present things exist.” The eternalist can affirm what the Bible teaches – that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This marked the beginning of time. And God gave us signs to mark the passage of time, namely the luminaries (Genesis 1:14-19). The “universe arrived at now” by the passage of time marked by the successive motions of celestial objects. Since the eternalist embraces the entirety of time – past, present, and future – we can talk about things like the flow of time. But, if only the present exists, there can be no passage of time, as was demonstrated in the previous article.
Dennis states, “There is no now according to the eternalist interpretation of SR.” This is another ridiculous strawman fallacy. “Now” is simply another word for “the present.” And eternalists embrace the present as well as the past and future. Remember the definition of eternalism: “the past, present, and future are equally real.” Dennis is claiming that eternalists believe the opposite of what is in the very definition of eternalism!
Dennis states, “From a theological perspective, the unreality of time is incompatible with biblical revelation.” I agree! But it is the presentist that unwittingly denies the reality of time, not the eternalist. After all, the eternalist embraces all of time – past, present, and future. Conversely, the presentist only embraces one point in time – the present. And there can be no flow of time (from past to present to future) if only the present exists. So Dennis is unwittingly refuting his own position.
Dennis continues, “First, and most important, the reality of time is presented in the Bible in the opening verses of Genesis that describe the miraculous Creation Week and the occurrence of the first day” (emphasis in original). I agree. And since I am an eternalist, I believe this actually happened in a real past. But since Dennis denies eternalism, his position requires him to reject the creation of the universe since it is not a present thing – and in presentism “only present things exist.” Perhaps Dennis doesn’t follow his own philosophy to this inescapable conclusion, but that would simply mean that he hasn’t thought through the implications of his beliefs.
He states, “So according to Lisle and Einstein the implication for the account of the Creation Week in Genesis 1 is that the days did not pass, they are an illusion.” Oh, the irony! It is in Dennis’s view that time cannot pass! The passage of time requires multiple points in time to exist in order for time to pass from one moment to the next. If only one point in time exists (the present), then time cannot flow. So, again, Dennis unwittingly refutes his own position.
One thing I do appreciate is that Dennis now admits that he is arguing against the position “according to Lisle and Einstein.” In an earlier paper, Dennis gave lip service to believing in the physics of Einstein. But such is not compatible with the philosophy of presentism, as will be demonstrated in an upcoming article. He now seems to admit that he believes that Einstein is wrong about the nature of spacetime. Yet every experiment ever done to date has confirmed the nature of spacetime as described by Einstein. I suggest that Dennis should be more upfront in the future and admit that he is not so much challenging me and my specific application of the physics of relativity, but rather that he disagrees with Einstein. Furthermore, he should consider publishing his criticisms of the physics of Einstein in professional physics journals where they can receive effective peer review from multiple experts in the field.
Dennis states, “It should be mentioned that one does not need to believe that the block universe is coeternal with God. A theist might say God created spacetime—the entirety of creation history.” This is basically correct. God is not within spacetime (1 Kings 8:27). Rather, He created it and sovereignly controls it. Thus, God knows everything that has ever or will ever happen. He works all things according to the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11).
Dennis claims, “But to say God created Minkowski spacetime as a concrete entity is to say past, present, and future, the entire history came directly from the hand of God in that instant, ‘in the beginning.’” Dennis doesn’t seem to like the position that God created all of spacetime, but it is biblical. God knew and determined everything that would ever happen in time at the moment of creation; God declares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10). Thus, Jesus can say of His elect that they will “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matthew 25:34, underline added). Yes, God determined all of what would happen when He first created the world, including those He would save (Ephesians 1:4; Revelation 13:8; 17:8).
I should also add that the actual spacetime metric of the universe cannot be Minkowski. The Minkowski metric describes the structure of spacetime that is non-expanding and contains no mass. It may be a good approximation on a sufficiently small scale, but it is not the exact metric of the entire universe.
Dennis continues, “In fact, [according to eternalism] the entire temporal extent (which is all there is in the block universe), the entire history of the Creation was created at once, directly from the hand of God.” The claim here is a bit ambiguous especially in light of the phrase “at once.” Events do not all occur at the same time. But if Dennis is claiming that eternalists believe God determined everything that would happen from the beginning, then he is right – because this is what the Bible teaches (e.g., Isaiah 46:9-10; Psalm 139:16; Ephesians 1:11; Job 14:5).
The claim that the entire temporal extent is “all there is in the block universe” is confusing at best, and a strawman fallacy at worst. As an eternalist, I affirm there are things that exist that are not bound by or contingent upon spacetime. God is an obvious example. And there are nonmaterial entities that flow from God’s nature, such as laws of logic, that are not contingent upon spacetime – contrary to Dennis’s claim.
Dennis writes, “An eternalist cannot say the universe is young.” Of course we can. And I often have.[2] So this is an obvious strawman fallacy. Rather, it is the presentist that cannot consistently affirm the age of anything. This is because the age of something is the time of its creation subtracted from the present time. But since the time of creation is in the past, it is not a present thing and, therefore, cannot exist within the philosophy of presentism. The concept of age is only meaningful if eternalism is true.
Dennis claims that according to eternalists, “Since the future already exists . . .” But this is again a strawman fallacy because “already” means “as of the present.” Eternalists do not believe that the future exists in the present. Rather, we affirm that the future is real. So, no, the future doesn’t “already” exist (i.e., in the present). The future exists in the future. It is real and is already known to God and determined by Him.
Dennis continues to misrepresent eternalism, claiming, “Since to an eternalist time is an illusion, this means that the Creation Week is still there.” No, time is not literally an illusion. It is very real and is what separates past events from present and future events. Remember, the definition of eternalism is that the past, present, and future are equally real, which means time is necessarily real. Notice the second strawman argument, that eternalists believe the “Creation Week is still there.” But “still” means “as of the present.” No, the Creation Week does not exist in the present, but it is a real event of the past. But the presentist denies the existence of past things. It is, therefore, the presentist (if he is logically consistent), not the eternalist, that must deny the reality of the Creation Week.
Are you beginning to see just how poorly thought-out presentism is? Its advocates rely almost completely on fallacious arguments that badly misrepresent their opponents.
Dennis continues, “When the Bible therefore speaks of Day One, Day Two, Day Three, etc. it is not referring to an actual progression of time. Rather, it is merely making a static geometric statement about the block universe.” This is both a bifurcation fallacy and a strawman fallacy. First, a geometric statement about the universe does not exclude the progression of time. Second, it is a strawman fallacy because the word “static” means “unchanging.” But any biblical eternalist would argue that conditions did change between days one, two, three, and so on. The universe is dynamic, not static. The fact that we can represent the dynamics of time on a static four-dimensional spatial grid may be what is confusing Dennis. But this does not mean that humans don’t experience the perception of time passing. For the record, the passage of time is a real human perception. We experience it regardless of how we may choose to represent it on paper.
Dennis states, “Within the eternalist block universe the relationship between the first day and the second day is that they are geometrically a temporal extent, they are static events separated by an interval of one day.” Dennis here contradicts himself. The first part of his statement is okay, that days one and two are separated by a temporal extent. That’s true. But then he says that they are “static events.” But static means “unchanging in time.” And there has been a change in time – a change of one day. Any two events that are separated in time cannot be static by definition. So again we see a misrepresentation of what eternalists actually believe.
Dennis continues his strawman fallacy, “All the eternalist can say is Day One is earlier than Day Two, etc. This is the eternalist view of relativity espoused by Einstein.” Well, day one is indeed earlier than day two. But is that “all the eternalist can say”? Of course not! We can also assert that there is some degree of continuity between day one and day two, and so on. But notice that a consistent (strong) presentist cannot even declare any of those things! Why? In presentism, day one and day two are not present things. Therefore, they do not exist within presentism! Again, presentism is simply not a logical, self-consistent philosophy.
Dennis claims, “However, this eternalist interpretation of SR is not a necessary deduction from the mathematics of SR.” First of all, Dennis doesn’t seem to really understand what eternalism is. He has misrepresented it time and again. But ironically, as will be demonstrated in an upcoming article, presentism is fundamentally incompatible with special relativity. I have already shown this in a preliminary form in my response to Dennis’s first article. But I will provide a more rigorous proof in a later article.
Ironically, Dennis states, “Contra Lisle we do see an image of the past, and that is the very essence of the LTTP.” But in presentism, only present things exist. Thus, we cannot see an image of the past since the past does not exist according to presentism. Thus, Dennis again unwittingly refutes himself. We will see in an upcoming article how this works in terms of the physics of Einstein.
Dennis claims, “Eternalism is bad news for Christian theism; it is heresy” (emphasis in original). Oh, the irony! On the contrary, we saw in the previous article that presentism inexorably leads to heresy. The crucifixion of Christ is not a present thing. Thus, it cannot exist within presentism. Nor could the resurrection of Christ exist since it too is not a present thing. It is eternalism – not presentism – that embraces the reality of past events like the resurrection of Christ. And without His resurrection, our faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14).
Dennis claims, “Reading Lisle’s refutation, he appears to be a bit confused about spacetime. He claims we owe our existence to spacetime.” Actually, we owe our existence to God. But God created us as spatial/temporal creatures. As such, we need a spacetime continuum in which to exist. God doesn’t.
Dennis claims, “He engages in some fanciful word play. We exist in space, and we exist in time; therefore, space plus time equals spacetime.” What Dennis calls “fanciful word play” is actually a form of reasoning known as logic. By definition, spacetime is the three dimensions of space plus the one of time. This is an analytic truth – something that is true by definition. I would recommend that Dennis take some classes on logic. They would be very helpful to him.
Dennis continues his confusion, saying, “This is another word salad, a feeble assertion with no attendant philosophical argumentation. Lisle asserts that without spacetime we could not be. This is merely rhetoric.” Not at all. Creatures like ourselves require space and time to exist. Einstein showed that space and time are not independent but are rather two aspects of united spacetime. Namely, what one observer measures as space only will be a combination of space and time to another observer, and vice versa. Only spacetime intervals are objective and reference frame independent. Thus, we require spacetime. Here is the argument as a formal syllogism:
- All humans require space and time to exist.
2. Space and time are two aspects of one spacetime (follows from SR).
3. Thus, all humans require spacetime to exist.
This is a type AAA-1 categorical syllogism which is valid. And the premises are true. (Dennis concedes premise 1. Premise 2 was proved by Einstein.) Thus, the conclusion is true.
Dennis concedes, “As a presentist I too claim that without space we could not be, and without time we could not be.” And Einstein showed that spatial extents and time intervals are not objective, independent structures. Rather, they are observer-dependent aspects of an objective spacetime interval. In other words, space and time are merely two observer-dependent aspects of spacetime. Thus, any creature that is contingent upon space and time is necessarily contingent upon spacetime. Again, this is basic logic.
Dennis continues, “After all, we are spatial creatures, and we change as time actually passes.” But the passage of time is incompatible with presentism, as was demonstrated in the previous article. The passage of time requires going from one moment in time to the next. But there is only one moment in time according to presentism – namely, the present!
He states, “But the ontology of presentism is that three-dimensional space exists, and that time is real—but is not an actual fourth dimension.” The definition of a dimension is something that has extension in a given direction or in time.[3] Time has extension in time. Therefore, it is a dimension. So Dennis’s claim is analytically false. But then again, Dennis might deny that time has any extension since in presentism there are no future or past moments. But we saw in the previous article that this is contrary to logic and to Scripture.
Thus far, we have seen that Dennis’s arguments consist almost entirely of strawman fallacies. This is the error of misrepresenting the opposing position and then refuting that misrepresentation. Will Dennis provide a single rational argument in favor of presentism? We will continue this analysis in the next article.
Reference
Lisle, J. 2018. The Physics of Einstein. Aledo, Texas: Biblical Science Institute.
[1] https://answersresearchjournal.org/astrophysics/refutation-of-lisles-refutation-of-dennis-2024/
All of Dennis’s quotes used here are from the above article.
[2] The universe is “young” only by contrast to the billions-of-years view espoused by secularists. After all, 6000+ years is quite old.
[3] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dimension