This is off-topic too but I answer that. — MoK

But if the argument is full of nonsense, then should it not be pointed out? Claiming the clarification process as off-topic sounds irrational too.

This is off-topic. As I mentioned in the OP, I am not willing to discuss whether P1 is true or false. So I am not willing to discuss how the act of creation from nothing is possible either. I assume that P1 is true and see what this assumption leads to. — MoK

OK fair enough. But you know philosophical topics cannot be discussed meaningfully without reference to reality and the facts of the world we live in. Truth, logic and the laws of reasoning are based on the reality and the facts of the world, and they always come first in the proof process.

Hence an If statement with non-factual premises will be rejected. Some folks will say it is denial of antecedent. I say, it is a nonsense. Reality and the facts of the world is the basis of logical arguments. When someone gives with an IF statement with nonsense premise, then it has to be rejected.

If the Moon is made of cheese, then God is a substance.

The premise is a nonsense. The Moon is not made of cheese. Hence the statement is not worthy of consideration. It is not denying premise.

It is informative in my opinion. A car is a substance, by this I mean it is made of matter, and it has a set of properties, such as form, color, weight, etc. — MoK

Substance is a form of physical matter i.e. tangible, visible, locatable ...etc. God is not a physical matter, is it? Could you prove God is a physical matter? Definition is not a proof. Some definitions need proof to be meaningful.

A new substance that is caused by God as is illustrated above when I discuss the act of creation from nothing. — MoK

When you say A caused B, you must be able to give out the detail of the cause. Simply saying A caused B, is not meaningful or informative.

If a stone caused window to break. It has further implied explanation that someone threw a stone at the window, which caused breaking.

By second, I mean there is no substance but an agent. This agent can cause a new substance though. — MoK

How though? Who is an agent?

I already defined a substance as something that exists and has a set of properties. — MoK

Sure, but it is not informative to be meaningful in saying that God is a substance.

It sounds like you’re getting your notion of time from that human invention and then applying it back onto the concept of time, in the process concealing the basis of time in past-present-future. — Joshs

Time as human invention is what we use in daily life. But I don't believe it is time itself, even if it is also significant part of time. There seem to be far more to it than just daily life version of time. We know time from our perception of the motions, movements and changes in the external world. We also have ideas of past present future in our mind via lived experience.

Should we not look into time as our mental acts of perceiving the temporality from the shared faculty of mind such as reason and sympathy, which are also objectified as means to apply to the real world for the practical purposes?

For me we do have time in itself, but time has different ways of appearing. one of them is measurable and discontinuous time. What we see in a watch are differences of times or differences of movements, — JuanZu

Time is known to be eternal and non stoppable. It keeps flowing even all your watches and clocks stopped. Even when someone died, time keeps flowing. Maybe not for the dead. If there were no life on earth, would time still keep flowing?

No, I am saying that God is a substance and the creator of the creation from nothing. — MoK

Saying X is a substance sounds not informative. It needs further elaboration with detail and evidence.
The creator of the creation from nothing? What does it mean? Is it from the Bible? What is "the creation" here?

No, God by definition is the creator of the creation from nothing. — MoK

If God is substance, then God is the creator of the creation from nothing. Is it what you are saying?

You asked about Buddhism before. The 'co-arising of self and world' is not foreign to Buddhism. In many of the early Buddhist texts (known as the 'Pali Canon') you will encounter the expression 'self-and-world' which designates the nature of lived experience. This is because the normal human state is always characterised by the sense of self and world. Being conscious is being conscious of. — Wayfarer

:fire: Great post. I will read it over taking time to digest fully before coming back to your points. cheers.

By substance, I mean something that exists, such as matter, and has a set of properties. — MoK

But there are billions of things which exist and have a set of properties in the world. Are they all God?

Do you deny there's some innate sense of past, present, and future? If you agree that there is, WHY do you suppose we have this? — Relativist

When you say something is innate, what does that mean? I would say innate means we have them without experience of the external world, or we have it from birth.

Is past present future innate? We need our sense perception to rely on what we are perceiving to tell what part of time we are experiencing. Time doesn't tell you what time it is. It is you who knows what time it is. How would you be able to do that without the sense perception of what is happening outside of yourself?

A strange fact about Now is that it seems to be subjective but at the same time objective. Because my Now must be your Now, and the whole folks living on earth must be facing the same Now. However, my past, your past, the other folks pasts are all unique. Same goes with future. So past future must be different from Now, although they all seem to in the same category of the concept called Time.

Let's think about your future and past. How would you be able to tell about your future or past with no lived life or experience? Your future will be something that is deriving from your present and past. Your past is the life you have lived with your own experience. They are all empirical, a posteriori mental states. They are not innate.

Of course not: time isn't a thing. But the present has just come into being — Relativist

Could "present" be being? Being is a concept which needs some explanation too, my friend. Would you agree?

I am currently thinking about nature of psychological time so I cannot by certainty say if it is a substance or not. — MoK

Let us know about it when you come to the Eureka moment.

As I've said, my belief is that time has an unavoidably subjective aspect, so I agree that it is not solely objective. But then, nothing is is 'solely objective'. I agree with the idealists and phenomenologists who say that the world and the subject are 'co-arising'. — Wayfarer

If dichotomy is the nature of time, which one is the real time? What necessitates the "co-arising"? How could subjectivity co-arises with the objectivity? When they co-arisen, are they then one? Or still two?

You clearly have an intuitive understanding of past present and future - because you refer to.them . Those are "imaginings", but they're primary - innate. No one has to train you to distingish events in this way. You just learn words to apply to your innate sense.

That distinguishes it from your other imaginings about past present and future. — Relativist

Time itself doesn't have past present future. It is us who divide time into those categories depending on what point, and what part of time we want to focus on.

It does not follow that they are one. The "becoming" needs to be accounted for, and can be - in a way consistent with your intuitive basis. — Relativist

Again, time itself doesn't become anything. We see them different way. There are no labels on time.

God is a substance. By change, I mean a change in the substance. — MoK

What is substance? Would it be some sort of mass or matter? Mass or matter would be perceivable i.e. sensible i.e. tangible, visible and locatable. Is this what you mean by substance?

Now that I've joined this thread, I will say something about this statement, namely, that I think it's fallacious. — Wayfarer

I have missed this post. Apologies. Belated welcome to the thread.

But this emphatically doesn't mean that 'time doesn't exist', simpliciter. Try holding your breath for a minute while you say that. — Wayfarer

I think I said it in some other replies the same answer. "time doesn't exist" doesn't mean it is denying the reality of time or our daily uses and reliance of time. But it is asking rather if time is the objective entity or property of the world, or it is rather internal perception of human mind.

If it is the former, it might exist in some form of physical entity. If it is the latter then it is psychological state of mind. In that case would it be correct to say time exists? We are not talking about the use or reliance of time in our daily life here, but we are (as the traditional philosophers have done) trying to find the arche of time.

If it didn't exist, it doesn't mean it is nothing. Because nonexistence is also a type of existence. It could be defined as a pure form of existence. If you are an idealist, then it is a perfectly acceptable definition.

FC) Therefore, God changes — MoK

What does "God changes" mean here? Is it physical change or metaphysical change? Changes can happen in different levels i.e. physical, logical, metaphysical, biological, syntactic or semantical ... etc.
Of course physical changes require space and time for its precondition. Biological changes can be the same changes as physical or chemical changes.

You came to the conclusion, but the conclusion need to clarify himself what he means by "changes". I would guess that it would be tricky to clarify the nature of change without first knowing what God means.

The OP seems to assert he doesn't want to talk about God. But the conclusion you arrived seems to be forcing for revelation under the logical necessity here between "changes" and "God". Without the clarification, the conclusion would sound empty and blind.

I think we first must distinguish between subjective time and objective time. We perceive subjective time rather than objective one. The subjective time is created in the brain, and it is subject to change, depending on the mood, emotion, substance usage, diseases, etc. This article discusses the subjective time. Objective time is a part of the spacetime manifold and it is the subject of physics though. — MoK

If you posit time into two different types, then which one is the real time? Are the two different times synchronisable in any way? Would it not create confusion trying to find out which time you must accept as the real time?

If one is the real, then is the other illusion? Or are they both real, or both illusion?

That's why I said it. We can't speak too much in Spanish, in this Forum, even though this Thread is called Ontology of Time.

Think of it like this: Heidegger said "remanens capax mutationem". That's Latin. And Spanish, unlike English, evolved from Latin. — Arcane Sandwich

remanens capax mutationem ? - I need to go and think about it for a while to see what it actually means.

Being seems to be another vast topic in Philosophy, similar to Time, hence why I tried to read Heidegger, because he wrote about Being and Time extensively. But his language in the original texts is highly abstruse, and uses the Greek words extensively in his sentences, which I found difficult to penetrate.
I put them down, and decided to return when I learned some Greek, which hasn't happened yet.

I didn't know Latin and Spanish had the same root. But Latin is another language which would be very useful in reading philosophy I would imagine. I had tried to learn Spanish long time ago, when I had a friend from Chile. But I realised it is impossible to learn so many different languages within the limited time we each have in life.

Talking about languages, I believe that a large part of Time is also embedded in our languages.
Always, eventually, gradually, at the end, in the beginning, at the same time, instantly, .... all seem to describe Time. But then is it the case they describe Time? Or would it be the case that they describe motions, movements and changes rather?

Indeed, comrade. Indeed. — Arcane Sandwich

Comrade sounds more spiritualistic.

I’ve never researched the question from the perspective of Buddhism. — Wayfarer

From my understanding, Buddhists claim there is no eternity and no self. Time is known to be eternal. Could it mean Buddhists deny time too? Would be interesting to find out.

Mine is an intuitive understanding but I believe it can be justified philosophically. — Wayfarer

What do you mean by "it can be justified philosophically"? I agree time is a wide topic, but at the end of the day, the OP is asking if time exists. When it asks if it exists, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means in what form it exists. Actually t may be found that time may not exist. But isn't nonexistence a pure form of existence?

It would be silly to ask if water or air exists. But it is a valid question to ask in what form time exists.

What's Buddhism's account of time? Is your view of time from Buddhism?

So reflecting on past and future doesn't have bearing on their having actually been a past, nor in there eventually being a future. Right? — Relativist

Yes, you are correct here.

The ordered relation: past-present-future refers to the actual, not to the order we choose to contemplate them. — Relativist

In theory, the ordered relation is true, but in reality they are one. If you think about it, future continuously becomes present, and present becomes past. In this case, is the division actually valid?

I do address that problem in The Mind Created World, although if you would like to discuss it further, that would probably a better thread for it. — Wayfarer

Do you believe mind also creates time? or is time a part of the world? Were there postings regarding time in the thread?

Imagine a world independent of the mind in which time does not pass, our experiences would not be able to perceive the movement of things either, don't you think? — JuanZu

It sounds illogical to be able to imagine a world independent of mind, when imagining is a function mind.

Human mind must have the common objective capability for perception and judgement such as reasoning and sympathy. Wouldn't time perception be some sort of perceptive mechanism from the shared capability of mind?

Without watches or clocks, no one can tell the exact time anyway. If you lock yourself in an empty room with no windows, and stay in there for days or even hours, would you be able to tell what time it is when you trying to tell time?

I would not say because of time. Time is not the cause of movement, but time is part of movement. For a dog it is obvious that time passes, but it has no concept of time. The important thing here is to understand that movement does not occur without time, because any movement can only be explained in a before and an after. But they are not the same thing: without movement we do not perceive time; but time passes even for a hypothetical motionless object, we call it persistence or duration. — JuanZu

That seems to suggest even motions and movement has nothing to do with time. Motions and movements are result of energy or force applying to mass or object. Time is measurement of the start and end of motion or movement, not motion or movement themselves.

You need motions and movement first before they tell you how long it took to end the process. At the end of the day, you have measured the intervals, not time itself. Would you agree?

I assume you agree that our imaginings of future and past are not the same as the future and the past. — Relativist

But you can only access all the past and future from present. Past has gone and not accessible from present unless from the memory and experience. Future is only accessible from imagination. I could only tell about the future of the world economy from at this moment and it is totally based on my imagination.

If I can access the future in reality, then I can win the lottery jackpot tomorrow. But I can only imagine it, which is surely inaccurate. Why inaccurate 99.99%? Because it is based on my imagination. All can only be accessible from present using my memory of the past, consciousness of the now, and imagination for the future. That was my idea. You may disagree on that.

Aun mejor es Carlos Astrada, buen hombre. — Arcane Sandwich

Es bueno saber que hay muchos grandes filósofos en los países de habla hispana. Leer y estudiar sus obras nos brindará perspectivas interesantes y alternativas sobre muchos temas filosóficos difíciles.

No hay de qué, caballero. Lea José Ortega y Gasset. — Arcane Sandwich

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Ortega_y_Gasset
Es un nombre nuevo para mí en filosofía, pero parece ser un gran filósofo, especialmente para los estudios de Heidegger. Gracias de nuevo mi amigo.

What did you mean by "future" when you said:

I was imagining and meaning some present moment in the future,
— Corvus
? — Relativist

"future" is the moment which will become present soon and in inevitable consequence, and it can be imagined at present.

No, he could not. God has being, as does everything else. Think of it like this: all animals have life, but there is no animal called "Life". All entities have being, but there is no entity called "Being". — Arcane Sandwich

Fair enough. Good explanation, gracias. I also feel that Time is closely related to Being.

The way I see it, Being is historical. Existence is not. Both them (Being and existence) are temporal, but not in the same way. Existence has no history. — Arcane Sandwich

:ok: :up:

It means that not even God could grant you access to Being. — Arcane Sandwich

Could God be Being himself? From my memory of flicking SUZ, man is Dasein i.e. Being at now and here. What would Being as God be?

Being is never entirely present. Even when it reveals itself, something remains hidden. We will never access Being. Not even through divine revelation. — Arcane Sandwich

Time doesn't reveal itself either. Moreover isn't all Being temporal? Therefore time is a part of Being. That idea just passed by me. It could be wrong. I need to get back to Heidegger. But fair enough on your idea. I am not sure also what divine revelation means. Does he say something about it? As you indicated, I am sure Heidegger says a lot about Time, hence Sein Und Zeit.

To discuss Time is to discuss Being. — Arcane Sandwich

Could it imply that Time is Being or a part of Being in Heidegger?

Well, do so. I am not stopping you mate.

What does this mean? Have you lost your mind? You are so far out of touch with the English language that we literally cannot have a rational conversation. — flannel jesus

That is a simple plain English. It means what it says.

I didn't say it's made of a bunch of paradoxes, I said you produced an apparent paradox, trivially, by just making false statements and claiming they're true by definition. — flannel jesus

I thought your point was the argument is from the paradoxes made up randomly with the false statements or something like that. So if contradiction is introduced for the steps of logical proof, then you claim it is a paradox, because false statement is made up and added. To my understanding, that was not a claim from someone who knew anything about logic.

Reductio ad absurdum is the most used method of logical proof from the ancient times. You call it making up false statement from paradox didn't make sense to me at all.