"We say such things as 'No dinosaurs are present' and 'No Martian expeditions are present; only things that are happening at 11am, 9/9/14 are present' (you may need to insert a different date into this last statement to get something that sounds true). But the block universe theory says that all these statement are false! The block universe theory is insane. We shouldn't believe it."

As best you can, extract from this paragraph a deductively valid argument against the block universe theory. You should number the premises and the conclusion should start with "Therefore."

Here is one valid argument you could extract from all this:

1. "No dinosaurs are present" is true.
2. If the block universe theory is true, then "No dinosaurs are present" is false.
3. Therefore, the block universe theory is false.

Do you think this is a good argument? If not, which premise(s) of your argument do you think a defender of the block universe theory should reject, and why?

A defender of the block universe theory could reject either premise, depending on how the premises are to be understood. If we understand premise 1 to say that "No dinosaurs are present" is true NOW, then the block universe defender should reject premise 2. For then the argument is valid only if premise 2 means "If the block universe theory is true, then "No dinosaurs are present" is false now." But that's not right. What the block universe theory says is that the dinosaur sentence is false from a "perspective outside of time," or from a "God's eye perspective" on reality. The theory doesn't say that sentences like that are false in 2014.