A Critique of B Theory of Time: Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Consequences

A Critique of B Theory of Time: Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Consequences

Introduction

An overview of A and B Theories of Time:

A Theory (Presentism): Only the present is real, and the past and future are ontologically distinct.

B Theory (Eternalism): All points in time past, present, and future are equally real, forming a 4D "block universe."

Summary:

The goal of this study is to attempt to critique B theory’s internal coherence, philosophical and scientific implications, and theological consequences.

Additionally, I will attempt to show why A theory is the only viable option, particularly in light of Christian theology.

Philosophical Critique of B Theory

a. Intuitive Incoherence:

On a B theory of time all moments in time are equally real, past, present and future are real simultaneously, by this I mean no time slice or reference frame is to be preferred. 

In reality objects are preserved in a 4D block which if one could see it would stretch indefinitely in both 'past' and 'future' directions. Our subjective reference frame are 'time slices' of this 4D block as we move through time.

These 4D blocks are said to endure through time without change.

Moreover, if one could see a hypothetical block through time, say a 1968 Ford Mustang, we could imagine going back 13.8 billion years in the before than direction and seeing the 4D photons that made this block enduring through time, merging into larger elements, into a primative star, to eventually explode to create the heavy eliments needed for life, eventually for other 4D blocks to make the 1968 Ford Mustang in question. 

At each point in this enduring 4D block of the 1968 Ford Mustang, is arbitrarily called the 1968 Ford Mustang, even if at one time slice it isn't in fact in the shape of a 1968 Ford Mustang. 

We can go a step further, say 100 years in the later than direction we take this hypothetical 1968 Ford Mustang, part of its block could be in a coffee blender or re-purposed into a lawnmower, or whatever. The arbitrary distinction of 'Mustang' and not 'coffee blender' or 'lawnmower' is problematic! If we say this is a 4D enduring block of a 1968 Ford Mustang, whilst large parts of its time slices aren't in a 1968 Ford Mustang shape, how is it enduring and not changing, when it's implicit it does? 

Humans experience time as flowing, with a genuine "now", is denied on B theory and dismisses this as an illusion, making it alien to our lived reality. 

Additionally, we can imagine our lived experience, if at every point, you are enduring, unchanging through time, when you hypothetically have a lung transplant, how have you actually endured in time when you've clearly changed? 

One strategy, is to insist they do not endure, rather Perdure.

Perdurance explains change as a difference between temporal parts, but this "change" is merely descriptive, it doesn’t involve actual transformation or becoming. The whole 4D object is static in the block universe.

The same arbitrary distinctions still apply. The "1968 Ford Mustang" is just a series of temporal parts, many of which are not recognisable as a Mustang. The identity of the object is still conventional, not intrinsic.

Whether objects "endure" as wholes or "perdure" as temporal worms, the B-theory view remains deeply alien to our lived experience. Both approaches struggle to account for the way we naturally perceive objects as persisting and changing through time.

Perdurance is essentially an intellectual strategy to work within the constraints of B-theory, but it doesn’t remove the deeper metaphysical issues. It might sound more sophisticated or abstract than enduring objects, but it doesn’t make the theory any more palatable or coherent.

It boils down to dressing the same problem in new language. At its core, perdurance still operates under the same premises, making it more of a deflection than a resolution.

b. Determinism and Free Will:

B theory implies hard determinism as all events are fixed within the block. If all time is equally real, the time slice of me 44 years in the before than direction at my conception till now in the present was already there set in stone. Additionally all future time slices are equally real and leaves no room for genuine agency or freewill. 

Attempts to reconcile this with free will (e.g., probabilistic determinism) are incoherent.

Some of the ways freewill has been tried to be justified:

Quantum Mechanics as Epistemic. 

Some proponents of B theory claim that quantum indeterminacy is not real randomness, but simply reflects our ignorance of hidden variables or deeper layers of reality. This is sometimes referred to as the "hidden variables" interpretation.

Issues:

This approach effectively denies the genuine randomness observed in quantum experiments, reducing it to an artifact of incomplete knowledge. However, this runs into issues because quantum mechanics does not seem to be reconcilable with a deterministic hidden variables theory in all cases (e.g., in the case of Bell’s Theorem experiments, which suggest that no hidden variable theory can fully account for the phenomena observed in quantum systems).

Many-Worlds Interpretation. 

According to MWI, every possible outcome of a quantum event actually happens but in a separate, parallel universe. In this framework, the block universe isn't just a single timeline but consists of multiple parallel timelines or "worlds" where every quantum possibility is realized.

Issues:

While MWI avoids the problem of determinism in the block universe, it introduces the paradox of an infinite number of realities—which many find philosophically and metaphysically implausible. The idea of endless branches where every possible outcome occurs seems uncomfortably extravagant and lacks empirical confirmation.

Probabilistic Causality.

Some B theory proponents try to integrate probabilistic causality into the block universe by suggesting that even though events are fixed in the block, their probabilistic nature is still meaningful.

Issue:

It still fails to explain what it means for something to be probabilistic in a deterministic block universe. If everything is already real in the block, how does the probabilistic distribution of quantum events fit in without being reduced to mere determinism?

Supervenience and Emergent Properties. 

Some philosophers working in B theory attempt to apply emergentism, suggesting that quantum indeterminacy emerges from a deeper level of physical reality that is compatible with the block universe.

The idea is that quantum mechanics may represent an emergent phenomenon that is derived from a deeper, more fundamental level of reality.

Issue:

While this view is attractive to some, it doesn’t explain the actual mechanism by which quantum indeterminacy would emerge in a way that is fully compatible with the block universe. The suggestion that probabilistic events emerge from determinism is speculative and doesn’t provide a clear framework for resolving the paradox.

Relational Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. 

According to this view, the outcome of a quantum measurement doesn’t exist in isolation, but is instead defined in relation to the system being observed. This allows for a kind of contextuality where the observed probabilities are real for the observer, but they do not contradict the fixed reality of the block universe.

Issue:

This interpretation is still controversial, as it doesn’t fully explain how a fixed block universe can accommodate the subjective experience of probabilistic outcomes. The relational interpretation is hard to reconcile with the idea that all events are equally real at once.

Overview:

In short these five different explanations to reconcile freewill within the framework of a B theory of time ultimately fails. All ultimately affirm what they tried to explain away, that is, hard determinism. Where events are predetermined with no genuine chance to do otherwise exists, which is necessary for genuine freewill. 

Scientific Issues with B Theory

1. Conflict with the Beginning of the Universe

Modern cosmology strongly supports the conclusion that the universe began to exist a finite time ago, approximately 13.77 billion years, based on a wealth of empirical evidence:

Redshift of Galaxies: Observations show that galaxies are moving away from each other, implying an initial singularity.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB): The CMB is the remnant radiation from the early universe, providing direct evidence of the Big Bang.

General Theory of Relativity: Einstein’s equations, under standard interpretations, predict a singular origin for spacetime.

Abundance of Light Elements: Observations of hydrogen, helium, and lithium abundances align precisely with predictions made by Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

The standard model of cosmology has been tested repeatedly and consistently affirms a finite beginning of the universe.

B Theory's Conflict:

On B theory, all points in time past, present, and future are equally real. This directly denies any genuine "beginning" to the universe, as the "past" and "future" are as ontologically real as the "present." The idea of a finite beginning becomes meaningless, as the universe's existence is seen as a complete, eternal 4D block without a true point of origin.

Philosophical Issue: If the universe had no beginning in a genuine sense, the need for a cause (as suggested by the Kalam Cosmological Argument) becomes unintelligible.

There is in the actual world no state of affairs of God existing alone without the space-time universe. God never really brings the universe into being; as a whole it co-exists timelessly with Him....The notion that God and the universe timelessly co-exist in an asymmetrical relation of ontological dependence is not only foreign to but actually incompatible with the biblical writers' conception of creatio ex nihilo, of God's existing alone and bringing the world into being out of nothing. ¹

Scientific Issue: This view is inconsistent with the overwhelming evidence pointing to a universe with a definite origin in time.

2. Conflict with Quantum Mechanics

Quantum mechanics introduces a fundamentally probabilistic framework to physical reality, challenging B theory's deterministic nature. Key evidence includes:

Radioactive Decay: Quantum mechanics predicts when certain isotopes will decay probabilistically, not deterministically.

Bell’s Inequality Theorem: Experiments show that no hidden variables can fully account for quantum entanglement, affirming that nature operates in ways that are fundamentally non-deterministic.

Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser: Experiments reveal that particles behave like waves before measurement, and a "backward causation" appears to occur only after observation. This suggests that reality remains probabilistic until observed.

B Theory's Problem:

B theory, with its static block universe, cannot accommodate quantum indeterminacy because all points in time are equally real. If the block universe is fixed, then:

1. The Future is Pre-determined: All events, including quantum events like radioactive decay, must already be fully determined and "real" in the block.

2. No Room for Probabilistic Nature: Probabilistic events become illusory, contradicting the inherent randomness demonstrated by quantum mechanics.

3. Incoherent with Observations: 

The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment suggests a temporal asymmetry (cause-and-effect relationship) that B theory cannot explain.

Philosophical Consequences: B theory implies that what we perceive as probabilistic is, in reality, fully determined within the block universe. This denies genuine randomness and reduces quantum mechanics to a misleading artifact of human perception, contradicting experimental evidence.

Scientific Consequences: If quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic and B theory implies determinism, then B theory is scientifically untenable. Attempts to reconcile the two (e.g., through hidden variables or emergentism) either fail or lead to metaphysical absurdities like infinite parallel universes.

Summary

B theory faces severe scientific challenges:

1. Cosmology: It denies the finite beginning of the universe established by modern cosmology.

2. Quantum Mechanics: It is incompatible with the probabilistic nature of quantum events, reducing them to determinism contrary to empirical evidence.

Theological Consequences of B Theory

1. Divine Timelessness:

B theory of time as I've attempted to show has significant challenges, these are compounded when coupled with God, His timelessness and Immutabile nature, let me explain. 

If the universe never 'truly' began, that is, it is illusory. God never could have made it, it is necessary, along with His nature and aseity (denying core arguments from natural theology like the Kalam Cosmological, Contingency and TeleologicalArguments) ! This raises questions on His truly timeless nature, as He must always be in time, which raises other issues on Jesus’s role as redeemer, which i will address later.  

Moreover it necessarily means God couldn't have made the universe otherwise making God not free but determined, which denies core doctrine.

For instance, take William Lane Craig's words 

On a B-Theory of time God is the Creator of the universe in the sense that the whole block universe and everything in it depends upon God for its existence. The B-Theorist’s affirmation that God brought the universe into being out of nothing at some moment in the finite past can at best mean that God tenselessly sustains the universe in being and that there is (tenselessly) a moment which is separated from any other moment of time by a finite interval of time and before which no moment of comparable duration exists. The universe began to exist only in the sense that the tenselessly existing block universe has a front edge. It has a beginning only in the sense that a yardstick has a beginning. There is in the actual world no state of affairs of God existing alone without the space-time universe. God never really brings the universe into being; as a whole it co-exists timelessly with Him.²

2. The Incarnation:

On B theory, Jesus must have always existed in time across all frames. Meaning Jesus is continually on the cross for all eternity, or being flogged or whatever horror's he endured for humanities sake.

Additionally, it undermines the uniqueness and historicity of the incarnation, in Mary was eternally pregnant with Jesus, and we must still believe she is.

These are absurd and troubling implications for theology and God’s Immutability. E.g. it's bad theology to have to accept Jesus existed in an objective sense in the jurassic period. Additionally, it raises genuine questions of God the Son can be truly Immutable if He is continually in His human state in a objective sense?

3. Moral Responsibility:

We have touched on this in previous points, but if determinism is true denies free will, making moral responsibility meaningless.

Contradicts the Christian understanding of sin, redemption, and judgment.

Why A Theory is the Only Viable Option?

1. Alignment with Intuitive Experience:

Preserves the flow of time and the reality of the present, this is our intuitive understanding of time, there is a real present, the past is an objective reality and the future is yet to come. 

2. Compatibility with Free Will:

Allows for genuine human freedom and moral responsibility. If humans have no fixed future, like in B theory,  they have genuine ability to choose otherwise,  a key principle in freewill. 

3. Consistency with Theology:

Affirms a God who acts in time, sustaining His sovereignty and freedom.

Upholds the uniqueness of the incarnation and the meaningfulness of redemptive history.

4. Reconciliation with Relativity:

Neo-Lorentzian models show that A theory can accommodate relativistic effects while preserving the intuitive flow of time.

Conclusion

B theory’s internal contradictions, deterministic implications, and theological issues render it implausible.

A theory, while not without challenges, aligns better with human experience, science, and Christian theology.

Final remarks. 

A theory preserves what is essential for a coherent understanding of time, free will, and God’s nature.

It is the only viable framework for a theologically sound view of reality.

Update: 11/02/2025

Why Neo-Lorentzian Time Aligns with Common Sense

Previously I argued that the Neo-Lorentzian view of time is the preferred option to avoid the unpalatable assumptions and implications of B-theory. B-theory undermines our lived experience, denies the genuine flow of time, and leads to determinism, which conflicts with our intuitions about free will and moral responsibility.

What is Neo-Lorentzianism?

The Neo-Lorentzian model of time posits an objective reference frame, a real flow of time, and an actual present moment. It allows us to affirm that:

The past is gone, the future is yet to come and we experience time as it flows from one moment to the next. And more importantly free will is genuine.

While this view is equivalent in simplicity to general and special relativity in terms of mechanisms, it avoids the troubling implications of B-theory. It reconciles the intuition of time’s flow with the empirical success of relativity, making it a philosophically attractive option.

The Problem with Neo-Lorentzianism: A Cosmic Trickster?

The main objection to the Neo-Lorentzian view is that it implies literal physical changes to measuring equipment and time when observers approach extreme conditions, such as near-light-speed travel or in high-gravity wells. This leads to a "bizarro world" where God or nature seems like a cosmic trickster, setting up a universe where reality behaves one way while appearing another.

This perceived deception is unsettling and seems to contradict the expectation that God or nature would create a universe consistent with its observable principles.

An Alternative Perspective: A New Plane of Understanding

To address this objection, I propose an alternative analogy based on geometry:

In plane geometry, we can accurately measure and draw triangles in a 2D geometry, hence the term plane geometry, where a triangle doesn't exceed 180 degrees. But if hypothetically, 3 pastors went to a large enough field and measured out a triangle, it can be the case we get angles above 180 degrees, you might quip "that's what you'd expect from a bunch of dumb pastors!" but what we end up with is, we discovered a different plane to which the model wasn't designed for. This is called Euclidean geometry, where you can measure angles in more than 3 dimensions. 

Similarly, I suggest that when we measure time in extreme relativistic situations, we are encountering a new "plane" or dimension of reality that our current models aren’t designed to fully capture. The apparent changes in time and measurement equipment are not due to a cosmic trickster but are consistent with the way reality operates within this broader framework.

As we approach the speed of light, we are, figuratively speaking, "getting closer" to the ultimate reference frame. This ultimate frame underpins time’s objective flow, while relativity remains a phenomenological description of how time appears to observers within their own reference frames.

Conclusion

This perspective avoids the troubling implication of typical neo-Lorentzian view of the universe while preserving the intuitive flow of time and the metaphysical truths of A-theory. By reframing relativistic effects as evidence of a higher-dimensional reality, we can uphold a coherent, elegant view of time that aligns with both common sense and scientific observations, whilst avoiding having to believe radical ideas.

Additionally,  The quote by William Lane Craig (above) perfectly encapsulates one of the theological challenges posed by the B theory of time. It highlights how, under B theory, the relationship between God and the universe differs fundamentally from the traditional theistic understanding of creation as an event within time. Instead, the block universe and God co-exist timelessly, which seems to undermine the notion of God as the efficient cause of the universe's beginning in a meaningful sense.

Here’s an expanded explanation why this is so significant an issue:

1. Co-Eternality of God and the Universe:

Under the B theory, the universe has no temporal beginning in the same way we understand beginnings on A theory. Instead, it is "eternal" in the sense that the block universe always exists in its entirety, akin to the way a yardstick "always" has a first inch. This challenges the concept of creation ex nihilo, where God is traditionally seen as bringing the universe into being at a specific moment.

2. Undermining Causal Priority:

Craig's critique shows that on B theory, God does not truly "bring" the universe into being; He simply sustains its existence in a timeless manner. This eliminates the causal dynamism that traditional theism attributes to God, reducing the act of creation to a mere ontological dependency rather than a temporal or volitional act.

3. Philosophical and Theological Tensions:

The analogy of the block universe having a "front edge" does not resolve the philosophical discomfort of the universe's co-eternality with God. The distinction between God and creation becomes blurred, as the universe is no longer meaningfully "caused" in a way that reflects God's creative agency.

From a theological perspective, this seems to conflict with doctrines of divine sovereignty and God's freedom in creation. If the universe is co-eternal with God, it risks making creation necessary rather than contingent.

References

1. William Lane Craig, Crossways Books, Time and Eternity: Exploring God's relationship to Time, 2001, p 213-214 e-book edition 

2. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/beginning-to-exist