Adorable. As explained numerous times before, anything that is certain to occur is set in stone. Are you that unable to come up with something that is certain? Is that the issue here? Okay - so let's assume you really are that incapable, and let's pick the death of someone's pet dog. This dog's death is, alas, certain, it is set in stone. Is this an adequate example for you? Now, are you saying that this dog's death already exists as a state? If so, then sure, you're an Eternalist, but the growing block brigade, and the Presentists, would agree with each other that the state of the dog being dead does not yet exist as a state. Does this resolve your little issue here, your incapability of coming up with anything that is certain? Or are you still failing to grasp the difference between something being certain and the small matter of ontology? I can't prevent something being irrelevant just because you bleat on about it being relevant yet fail to provide anything to support it being so. I have explained repeatedly to you why I consider it irrelevant, and you have simply refused to listen, and you continue to refuse to explain why it is relevant. That you don't care about being taken seriously is all too apparent. Only one of us here is providing anything of substance, anything by way of support for their position. And here's a big hint: it isn't you. Your judgement in the matter is as relevant as you have shown the theory of time to be to this thread: i.e. not at all. When you want to offer something that is actually relevant, I'll be here to listen. I have not only fully explained why I consider the theory of time irrelevant, I have also explained many times to you why your assertions of it being relevant are wrong. You have not countered any of those explanations, nor supported your assertions, and are now simply throwing a tantrum and have started crying. So let's see if you can follow these dots: Does the theory of time affect the nature of determinism? No. Is the nature of determinism sufficient to provide argument that free will is not possible in a deterministic universe? Yes. Is raising an issue that does not affect the nature of determinism therefore an irrelevancy? Would certainly seem to be. Now, I have no doubt that you want to dispute the middle of these answers, so please feel free. And who knows, in doing so you may, even just once, show that the theory of time really is relevant to the issue. But you haven't done that yet, no matter how much you keep asserting that you have. You're the only one wasting people's time, Vociferous. You're the one failing to support your claim that the theory of time is relevant to the issue. If you can't be bothered to do that, and it is patently clear that you can't be, then be a good little boy, stop crying, and leave the conversation to the grown-ups.