The Instigator
Antichronos
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Galal
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Time isn't real.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Galal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,980 times Debate No: 40763
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

Antichronos

Pro

I will be against time being real. There is no proof that time exists. It is all an illusion created by humans to logally deal and order things in space.
Galal

Con

Now I see that you dismiss the idea of time existing. Very well, on what claims do you think time does no exist? Because it has not been proven scientifically? Then again what is proven scientifically everything is but a mere theory most adaptable to our level of logic and perception. Even gravity is a theory, yet we cannot deny that force that holds up intact to the ground. Unless you have a better explanation of course.

However if times does not really exist, then how are you reading my post right now? And why are you not reading it two weeks ago or yesterday?

How do you explain the things you have done in the past, why can't you simply go back and refine your actions or stop your own birth? Why are you aging?

If time does not exist fellow, none of us would be here right now for time is a state of being, every breath I take is a proof to my existence.
Debate Round No. 1
Antichronos

Pro

You use the example of gravity. Which on the surface makes sense, but unlike time gravity can be proven due to the ability to experience gravity. You cannot experience time. I am reading this now due to spacial order. Things cannot happen before they happen. They happen in order of occurrence. You cannot reverse your age, because age has nothing to do with time. Aging is a biological process. Secondly there is no real proof that we exist. Everything we feel is due to electrical pulses created by our brains. Our reality could simply be simulated.
Galal

Con

And we do experience time as well, You are wrong. The way you explained how you can't change things because it is controlled by spatial dimension. Spatial dimension are the objects touchable objects surrounding you. And no I don't think we do not exist, unless you can prove otherwise you theory of 'impulse' is nothing but a mere bed time story. I exist because I control my actions I can feel, touch, smell and hear. So basically I am alive. Now if you want to talk about TIME. It very much exist, because as I have said if it did not exist you would choose which day even era to live and experience, you could even be immortal. But you might argue and say that this is a biological 'thing' again. Why do you think people die? Why do they experience heart attacks, it's because of time, if there was no time everyone would live forever or at least for a certain standard age. The fact that people die could be simplified in an example of you buying a computer, after 10 years this computer will depreciate and lose it's value and eventually 'die'. Same thing with human beings, our organs depreciates as TIME goes on. IF time did not exist we would be youthful forever and our vital organs would not depreciate or function less.
Debate Round No. 2
Antichronos

Pro

People experience heart attacks from many things. Time is not one of them. Poor eating is a reason. But you would not get a heart attack because its "time". There is a reason that can be linked to it. Computer's "die" from parts wearing out. Not because they have a set "time limit". Your body wears down from day to day life not because seconds tick off your life. Time is a measurement and as such is a subjective concept. Not something that exists or acts upon things.
Galal

Con

You are saying if I eat healthy, I will live forever? And if so why not? What wears out those computer parts? Notice that you unacknowledged admitted that time exists when you said 'Your body wears down from DAY TO DAY life nor because seconds tick off your life' Not only does your argument contradict itself, you are admitting that a person could live forever if he/she do not spend effort.. You can't dismiss time, because you have no evidence to do so.

Your argument is not valid.
Debate Round No. 3
Antichronos

Pro

Well if you would not put words in my mouth I will explane. No if you eat healthy you will not live forever. But you will live LONGER than someone who eats junk food all the time. Use is what wears down your body and computer parts. You use them and they work less. The keys on your keyboard? They begin to wear down from constant use. Like wise with our bodies. We use them and they break down. Just because I used an expression doesn't mean I admited anything. Humans created a so called "day" we use it to classify a revolution on the earth's axis. That in no way constitutes time. My arguement has never "contradicted itsself." You on the other hand have used the point of "because we age time must exist" as a crutch. You have no proof time exists. You only have what we "classify" as "time". If you went to Mars a "day" would be different there for "time" would be different. We only contructed this as a concept to keep the world in order. Everything wears down due to defects and use not because 5 seconds past. Think about your shoes. When you walk they scrape the ground. Thats why the soles wear down. Not because time, but friction.
Galal

Con

Let's sum up your argument, you say that I have been accusing you of words you have not spoken or maybe I missinterpreted your message. But the fact is I got the meaning behind your message loud and clear, You claim that things do not depreciate because of time but because of use. I am wondering though, have you ever heard of people dying as enfants, athletes dying at a young age, while some others reach an age above average? Of course the environment and food they intake is one of the most important factors. But in a family of four where there is an old man with the age of 102 and presumably they all live under the same conditions do you think they will all make it to the same age as their elder? However the usage of objects still relies within the context of time. If I use the keyboard for a 'day' it would not defect, but how about a usage of 10 years. I might ask you, if I never used this keyboard for 40 years, would it still be as good? No, why is that because the material will have grown rigid, the metal would rust. Why does the metal rust? Even if no one uses they keyboard? This could only mean that iron has been taking the toll on itself. You can also look at anything around you and it would represent time. Do you know how you see? Light or photos fall onto an object then reflects into your cornea which refracts that image and then it's decoded in your optical lobe, and that is how you see. Well I am sure you are aware of that, but my point is, how can you explain the period taken for the light to travel from the object till it reaches your eyes. The speed of light is supposed to travel with a pace of 299 792 458 m / s. Now if there was no time, only spatial dimension, would the light ever travel? Because when light touches the object is a different time from when it actually is decoded inside your head. Those are different events, how can there be no time?

Food for thought.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by skipsaweirdo 1 year ago
skipsaweirdo
Obelisk casts shadow
Egyptian notices shadow moves.
Egyptian calls this time
Egyptian encircles shadows movement and rightly assumes even at night the shadow follows essentially the same pattern which is basically a circle
Egyptian calls this time
The shadow moves because the Earth rotates, period
The shadow moves basically in a circle continuously
The hands on the face of a clock move in a circle, coincidence? You would have to be seriously mentally deficient not to see the correlation.
Jump 2000 years later and "intelligence" has logically arrived at the following conclusion.....
Time is a magical fourth dimension that humans experience.
Even someone who is mentally retarded should recognize there is absolutely no logical premise where a shadow can become a mystical magical powerful "thing" that humans experience or live through or die because of or use to prove why anything happens......Time is the God of the godless. They can't prove it with physical evidence. They claim it interacts with reality but have no proof of it having a causal Nexus with anything. But more importantly, they appeal to it when they can't explain their religion....I.e. give me enough time and rain on rocks with heat and lightening via pond scum in a soup can result in billions of lines of information known as DNA, if you give it enough time.
Just give us more time. Science will in time. Humanity will evolve out of it in time, in time, in time. That's the argument....lol
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
RFD
I provided a 40-line summary which is a reference to my RFD here.

S&G: I ran this debate through my spell-check and both Pro and Con didn't bother to spell-check their words. Pro made more mistakes than Con, but I'm putting this as a tie as both misspelled many words.

Sources: I expected some sources but none were present in this debate. So they are tied.

Arguments: Pro suggested extreme skepticism and proposed that even he doesn't exist, which is absurd as we follow the concept of "reasonable proof" in debates instead of "absolute proof" or else nobody would ever prove anything . Con appealed to common sense and made many strong arguments for the existence of time such as the fact that Pro does not move into historic times when he wishes, and the fact that time is a factor in the "wearing down" of objects. Pro did not respond to those in an effective manner but either ignored the argument and didn't use the whole text to respond, or simply drew a false analogy. Refer to my summary for examples. "Time doesn't exist" is not a default position one takes if you have no proof for time. "I'm agnostic about time's existence" is the default position but Pro seems to be simply unfamiliar with both the concept of "reasonable proof" and that of "burden of proof." It goes without saying that no proof for A doesn't mean proof for Not A, so Arguments go to Con.

Conduct: Pro made many false accusations such as "stop putting words into my mouth" and was very assaultive when Con was trying to understand his short paragraphs and offer good rebuttals. Pro seems to think that he could get away with being ambiguous and then accuse the person trying to solve his ambiguities of strawmaning him. So conduct goes to Con.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
SUMMARY OF ROUND 1

Pro declares his position against the existence of time and goes further to claim that time is an "illusion created by humans to logally[sic] deal and order things in space."

Con provides an argument from the state of being in response that he repeats through various examples, e.g "If time does not exist fellow, none of us would be here right now for time is a state of being, every breath I take is a proof to my existence."
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
SUMMARY OF ROUND 2

Pro only counters the example of gravity when had much space to fill, by saying that we experience gravity but not time. This doesn't make sense as I can experience the time passing even if I was put in an enclosed room for 24 years without any window or indication that time is passing. So I can experience time passing.

Pro argues further, "there is no proof that we exist." This is self-defeating, extreme skepticism as I can vote against Pro and say I don't exist and neither does my vote.

Con refutes Pro by saying that he exists due to empirical evidence.

Con adds the fact that Pro can't live in the time he wants as time exists.

Con speaks of duration of things as proof for the existence of time which is a strong argument.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
SUMMARY OF ROUND 3

Pro makes another new argument, again not using his space properly, saying that heart attacks are never caused by time.

Pro argues that things die out due to "wearing out" (a process that requires time) but says that time is just a measurement and not an actual thing. This is a self-contradictory argument at best.

Con replies what I said that Pro admitted there is a factor of time in "things wearing out" through his argument which was self-defeating to his position.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
SUMMARY OF ROUND 4 (Final Round)

Pro accuses Con of putting words in his mouth just because he misunderstood his hidden implication.

Pro continues arguing about junk food and health ignoring the fact that time is a factor in his equations.

Pro speaks of the relativity of time as proof that time doesn't exist, which doesn't make sense. Time could be relative and yet existent. The fact that there exists relative time on Earth and Mars is proof that time exists.

Con repeats his argument from duration with more vivid examples.

Con ends with argument from causation and occurrence of events which is highly suggestive of the existence of time.
Posted by Matt_L 3 years ago
Matt_L
Time is merely the documentation of change.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by chrimill 3 years ago
chrimill
AntichronosGalalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a reasonable case for "time" as a concept existing since actions performed in the past have a bearing on the future. Pro seemed to be arguing time is a figment of human's imagination and thus a human construct. However, regardless of the fact that "time" is arbitrary, i.e. "days" are a single revolution of the earth, that is no different than other dimensions such as "length" existing. Interesting debate overall, would maybe have liked to see it include a definition of "real" so that it could be a more plausible burden of proof.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
AntichronosGalalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Maybe the brain simulates time, but CON still had a much better argument. If one of you guys used a link, it's two points right there.
Vote Placed by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
AntichronosGalalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting topic, burden of truth I would suggest is on the instigator, and was not met. Arguing against the existence of time is a bloody tricky thing to do. It is a shame that the debate had such little depth, and on a topic as complex as this it is surprising to see no sources given.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
AntichronosGalalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD and 40-line summary backing it in the comment section.