(April 29, 2017 at 4:03 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I'm definitely a presentist.
The past existed when it was present but no longer does. The future will exist when it is present but it isn't yet. The present is all that exists at any point in time.
What's the opposite of present? Absent. Absent from here but present in another location? Then it's not completely absent and it's present there. Present in another point in time? Only when that time was the present.
The past and future can't exist without being the present and therefore not the past or future. Completely present=completely existent. Completely absent=completely nonexistent.
When we talk about the past and future we are actually talking about a time that used to be present but no longer is or a time that we expect or predict to be present but isn't yet. There's no contradiction in being able to talk about timelines that no longer exist or don't exist yet. Eternalism sees a contradiction that isn't there.
Just to be clear (I'm a little confused by the third and fourth paragraphs in your post), are you saying that the only point in time that exists is the one you presently observe? If so, then you are indeed a presentist. But eternalism (as opposed to presentism) is often argued to be in agreement with the implications of Einstein's special theory of relativity.
