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

Time is a non-existent concept

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: 12/5/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 653 times Debate No: 41715
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Time does not exist, it is an idea made by man to describe aging, and to keep track of records. If time existed we would be able to interact with it. The fact we cannot control or interact with time makes it a completely false thing.


Thank you for the opportunity to debate this subject. I love ideology and the application of challenge when it comes to ideas that are generally accepted by society.

First I would like to agree with you that time is in fact an idea made by man. Your point is solid however, the fact that time is an idea and intangible doesn't exclude it from meeting the criteria to be considered an existent concept.

con"cept noun \G2;k"n-G6;sept\ : an idea of what something is or how it works

Having defined "Concept", it is established the it is in fact an idea, and therefore intangible by definition, meaning that the "Concept of Time" cannot be interacted with by definition. So to say that time is a non-existent concept because you cannot interact with it, would be incorrect.

The concept (Idea) of time is very real in that it is not only accepted and used as solid ideology by every culture and society in the World today, but time is also an established principle used in conjunction with other concepts to define and explain our physical law, ...which is also a concept and intangible.

"Many fundamental physical laws are mathematical consequences of various symmetries of space, "Time", or other aspects of nature".

In summary I'd like to make it clear that my argument is void of my opinion and contains only facts supported by either evidence or logical deduction. I appreciate my opponents argument and look forward to a rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1


Sorry for my terrible choice of wording, I'm not saying it isn't a real idea I'm saying it isn't an actual thing outside of an idea. People treat time like an object of the universe, when in reality it's just an idea made by man. You say it's globally excepted, but if it was a concrete thing than globally all the times would be the same.


Well this changes the scales drastically.

I honestly cannot grasp what you might mean when you say that people treat time like an object of the universe. I don't think I've ever seen an example of that.

You are in fact correct in that time is merely an idea and it is in fact created by Man. To address the globalization of time, the concept of time is itself based upon many factors, one of which is the position of the Sun, which is a variable completely dependent upon your location on the Earth.

In order to present any sort of logical opposition to your argument, one would have to address this through mass perspective. I simply mean that time is as concrete or non-existent as a person perceives it to be, this is also the case with any other concept. One could argue indefinitely on the realism of time, instead I would argue that time is the globally accepted measurement of length starting with the rising and ending with the setting of the Sun. All other increments of time are based on this concept, from weeks, moths, years, decades...ect..ect.

I concede to my opponent, his point of time not being a tangible object is simply a fact and cannot be opposed. The only argument that could be posed against this would be done using the theory of relativity which in fact is only a theory. I wouldn't have made opposition in this case had I known what was meant as opposed to what was said in the creation of this debate.

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 2


Chezmix64 forfeited this round.


For the sake of completing the debate (I've begun 3 but can't seem to get a complete status) again I concede to my opponent in this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
actually we can interact with time through time dilation; we just aren't at speeds high enough for anoticeable effect in everyday life.

Also in the presence of a strong gravitational field such as a black hole; time literally stops; anyone looking at an object falling into a blackhole would never see the objec reach the singularity. There's also the fact that if you could travel into a black holes event horizon for 1 second; on earth hudreds or tjousands of years would've passed.
Posted by SemperVI 2 years ago
If time did not exist, everything would happen at once.
Posted by Salisbury 2 years ago
I just recently got into a similar debate.
I'll just paste a few of the excerpts.
Yes I agree the concept is real but that time itself is not real.

"Referentially, we use numbers to convey time. Those numbers are real. But they have figurative value, especially in relation to the concept of time passing. Time may be a useful way to monitor our everyday lives and the world around us, but it still only encompasses the whole notion of sequential events and movements of matter through space. Time can measure this, in the same way that numbers can represent a series of objects in a systematic and reliable way. "

"None of these need "time" to operate. They work in apparent sequence and conceptually that time only exists because we must measure it in a relative way, to understand it predictably and systematically. There is no particle, subatomic or otherwise, that constitutes the molecular structure of time. Time has no quantity or mass or presence, therefore it is not real. It is useful to us yes, like theoretical math, but it is entirely conceptual."

"I agree that we could reach this effect, being able to travel from one point to another at extremely high velocity, say at lightspeed. But not really the traditional notion of time travel where realms of parallel permanence exist on a continuum. But you could replicate a place in the past or accelerate the future."

"This doesn't make time real...
Can you quantify time in and of itself?
What you have described is a method of measuring seemingly sequential events. That's it. And computers use time to structure these sequences like pretty much everything else we do in our lives. It's conceptual and useful but not "real"."
Posted by zrg4848 2 years ago
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.
No votes have been placed for this debate.