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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.