The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Time has a starting point

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 673 times Debate No: 101758
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




The Argument is such: I believe time has to have a starting point. In other words, it cannot be infinite.

Awaiting a challenger...


Time and space, my favourite topics.

As I always say, time and space are intangible realities.

Time just is.

Time does not require human justification, qualification, validation, limitations, constraints etc. etc.

Time does not move. Time does not exist.

Therefore time cannot have a beginning or an end.
Debate Round No. 1


Riddle me this:

If time has no beginning, then an infinite amount of seconds has already passed. But, because of the definition of infinity (aka never-ending), an infinite amount of seconds can never pass. But we just said an infinite amount of seconds has already passed...


Time does not need to be measured or regarded.

Infinity is merely a human concept

Seconds are a simply human construct.

Only humans have the desire to record/measure the duration of events and to give those events validity and quantity.
Debate Round No. 2


4 sentences with no relevance.


Pro calls themselves TheMagi. But appears to have little wisdom.

When confronted with simple logic they are left baffled.

My rebuttal of Pro's opening proposition is simple realism.

Time just is!

Time does not require definition.

Only human beings have the need to define time.

Only human beings seek to give time boundaries.
Debate Round No. 3


It is tedious to explain the irrelevance of your four statements, however I guess I have no other choice at this point...

Con statement number 1: "Time just is!"
That is not an argument; that is a position that needs to be proven true or false. By saying the words, "Time just is!" you might as well just be repeating the position you are supposed to be proving. "Time just is" is synonymous with "Time i eternal (aka time has no starting point)." This restatement of your position clearly accomplishes nothing.

Con statement number 2: "Time does not require a definition."
Time actually does need a definition if you are to use it in a sentence and try to prove a position that includes the word time. By saying "time does not require a definition" is to say it is impossible to say what time really is.... If that were the case, why are you trying to prove time is eternal when you claim you don't even know what time is.

Con statement number 3: "Only human beings have the need to define time."
While true, this has no point whatsoever. I don't even know where to begin with this one. I guess I'll use an example. If I am trying to prove that my brownie will sit on my plate for ten seconds before I eat it, and someone comes up to me and says, "No, it will not sit on the plate for ten seconds, because only humans have the need to define brownies," I will look at him and say, "Wow great point, you have obviously proven the brownie could not exist on my plate for 10 seconds......."

Con statement number 4: "Only humans beings seek to give time boundaries" this not the same exact thing as number 3? Only human beings seek to specify the amount of time a brownie sits on a plate, and therefore it could not possibly have sat on the plate for 10 seconds......Um. sure whatever you say pal.


In my opinion, time and space are very simple to understand.

Therefore in my opinion time and space actually require simple explanations.

My opinion is what makes up my half of this debate. Does it not.

It is amazing how many people are unable to grasp the simplicity of realism.

They prefer to make bizarre references to chocolate brownies.

The chocolate brownie sitting on the plate, is an event. Defining that event using seconds is merely gratifying the human need to measure the duration of the event. This has no relevance to the supposed beginning or end of time.

With regard to definition.

Definition has more than one definition

Pro's definition of definition is misplaced.

There is no "a" in my statement.

Con asserts that it is futile to attempt to define time with boundaries and limitations, such as a beginning.

Ok. The "brownie" begins sitting on the plate and sits there for 10 seconds. But this is an event, not time.

Time just is. That annoying statement.

I fear it annoys, because it is so simplistic yet so logical.

It usurps the human need for over complex conceptual theory and explanation.
Debate Round No. 4


You have literally presented no argument except saying "Time just is." In Round 2, I gave you logical reasoning to why I think it cannot be infinite. You countered with the words "My simple realism. Time just is!" Look buddy, there's no need to keep on repeating that time is eternal over and over again as proof"that's not proof, that is your position you are trying to prove. It's in the heading.

Since it is the last round, I would like you to use it wisely and tell me WHY you think "time just is," or else we will be forced to accept my reasoning because I am the only one that has presented any sort of argument for my position.


Pro postulates only one argument, which I have rebutted twice.

They present this evidence two times. Once in the form of a riddle and once in the form a chocolate brownie incident.

They assert that: As events have a beginning and an end, therefore time must also have a "starting point" and presumably a finishing point.

But quite clearly there is no correlation between the proposition and the supposition here.

Because events and time are not the same.

When observing or referring to events we may use the word time in glib anecdotes, such as, time seems to be passing very slowly or we're running out of time.

But these are not actually references to time, but simply utterances that convey how we are consciously interacting with an event.

Time just is. This maybe a very simplistic statement. But I find it hard to explain the reality of time in a more appropriate way.

Pro suggests that I am referring to infinity or eternity. But I am not.

Infinity and eternity conjure up mental images of an expanding void whose boundaries are always just beyond the limits of imagination.

Whereas time is unimaginable.

Therefore time cannot be observed, defined or adequately explained.

Ultimately, we have to accept that time just is.

The need for a "starting point" is nonsensical and irrelevant.

Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: byaka2013// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G), 2 points to Con (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Although pro made more sense, con was a way better opponent.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn"t explain any of the point allocations.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
How could there possible be time without space I wonder.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
There can be time without space, but there can't be space without time. Time's a construct made to track how long something has been a certain way. While Con was poetic and philosophical, he never made any real arguments. Pro also never made points of his own, only rebutting Con's 'irrelevant' comments. Because no real arguments seemed to be made, I have to suggest this debate ties.
Posted by TheMagi 1 year ago
and for those of you that require a definition, according to the dictionary, time is: "progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole." In other words, time is an ordering of the events.
Posted by TheMagi 1 year ago
Sure, I will change my settings so that you can message me C_e_e
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Is time just a measurement of the duration of events or is time what allows events to occur? Does time stop if nothing changes or does nothing change when time stops?
Posted by canis 1 year ago
What would actually "happen" if time did not exist ?...Nothing.
Posted by C_e_e 1 year ago
TheMagi, I would like to converse with you about this topic as well. But, conversing here in the comment section might amount to what seems like debating multiple people at once (Sonofcharl, Jonbonbon, and myself). So, would you please change the settings on your account so that the "Send a Message" link on your page can be used to send a message?
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Time is a pretty obscure concept. You may want to further define what you specifically mean. It seems like what you're arguing is whether or not the universe is infinite, but time is an especially meta concept to just say "let's argue about time." Your debate will be a lot better if you define what you mean.
No votes have been placed for this debate.