Q&A: Question about the philosophy of time and implications for the cosmological argument
Question about the philosophy of time and implications for the cosmological argument
Question
Hello Rabbi,
As is well known, there are 2 central theories regarding the philosophy of time – A-theory & B-theory. The first claims that the present is the only thing that exists, whereas the second claims that time is static and that our perception of it as it appears in our minds is a conceptual phenomenon that differs from reality (in other words, the past, present, and future all exist together).
- I would be happy to know which of these views you hold and why, in your opinion, it is preferable to the other.
- I came across an argument that the B view greatly weakens premise A of the cosmological argument – that everything must have a cause. For if time is closed within itself, then causality, a concept that seemingly has meaning only within time, is not relevant. From the source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument#Theories_of_time):
“From start to finish, the Kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived.”
What do you think about the above? Is someone who advocates the B view thereby forced to reject the cosmological argument?
Thanks in advance.
Answer
Blessed are you, so full of knowledge. I, in my sins, do not have this knowledge, so your “as is well known” does not apply to me.
At first glance, this dispute seems to me like mere empty verbiage. I do not understand what it means to say that the present “exists” or “does not exist.” And likewise regarding the past. Does the past exist in the present (what does that mean?), or did it exist in the past (for then it was the present)?
If you would be willing to explain to me what this is about, I can try to think about what my view is, and afterward also think about whether this has any projection whatsoever on the cosmological argument.
Discussion on Answer
As I wrote, these are meaningless sentences. Obviously the future does not exist in the present. This looks like nonsense to me, though very characteristic of philosophers. I looked there, and indeed it seems to me to be nonsense.
Just noting that philosophers who support the cosmological argument claim that the argument is agnostic regarding the theory of time. See Craig there, there. And also his long book on this specific question.
My knowledge is, at best, a drop in the ocean compared to yours, but thanks, I guess…
In any case, according to A-theory, the only thing that “exists” is the present. The past exists only in our memory; the future is a fiction of the imagination.
According to B-theory, time itself is a “fourth dimension,” and being in the present is an illusion of consciousness. The past, present, and future all exist together statically as part of the being of the universe.
I feel like I basically just repeated my previous explanation. I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at Wikipedia; they surely explain it better than I do. There is the earlier link I sent, and also:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time
Thank you very much for the response, and have a good evening 🙂