As to the A or B theory of time.
Does it make sense in the A theory of time to say that there will be an eclipse of the sun in North American in 2026? That seems like a statement that makes sense and is even true, but it is inherently untensed, so isn't available for the A theory. At most, the A theory could say it will happen in the future. I guess maybe it could say something like an eclipse will happen 8 years in the future. But that seems to miss the definitiveness of the B theory statement.
As for the infinite regress, it seems like an A-theory description is easy: there is an infinite past. That is an A statement that is always true. Where's the problem?
And, to return to the topic, this was all concerning whether the first cause argument is able to demonstrate what it claims. It clearly fails for several reasons: 1) an infinite regress is not contradictory, 2) the existence of an un-caused cause violates the assumptions of the argument itself (that everything has a cause), 3) it doesn't deal with the question of whether there may be more than one un-caused cause 4) it does't show that an un-caused cause necessarily has the characteristics attributed to a deity, and 5) it fails to take into account that all known causes are physical causes and makes a special pleading that there must be a non-physical cause.
At the very least, we can say that this classic argument for the existence of a deity fails miserably.
Does it make sense in the A theory of time to say that there will be an eclipse of the sun in North American in 2026? That seems like a statement that makes sense and is even true, but it is inherently untensed, so isn't available for the A theory. At most, the A theory could say it will happen in the future. I guess maybe it could say something like an eclipse will happen 8 years in the future. But that seems to miss the definitiveness of the B theory statement.
As for the infinite regress, it seems like an A-theory description is easy: there is an infinite past. That is an A statement that is always true. Where's the problem?
And, to return to the topic, this was all concerning whether the first cause argument is able to demonstrate what it claims. It clearly fails for several reasons: 1) an infinite regress is not contradictory, 2) the existence of an un-caused cause violates the assumptions of the argument itself (that everything has a cause), 3) it doesn't deal with the question of whether there may be more than one un-caused cause 4) it does't show that an un-caused cause necessarily has the characteristics attributed to a deity, and 5) it fails to take into account that all known causes are physical causes and makes a special pleading that there must be a non-physical cause.
At the very least, we can say that this classic argument for the existence of a deity fails miserably.
