We have been here before

[Age]

Prove it.

Did you NOT understand the Truly very SIMPLE clarifying question I asked you?

If you can not work it out, the question was asked to you for you to PROVE that you are really open. You, did after all, claim that you are open, so yes, prove that you are.

Is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

No.

Therefore, absolutely NOTHING needs to be said to PROVE that 'you' are NOT open at all to hear what I have to say. So, END OF STORY.

I already argued against that:

You have, ONCE AGAIN, completely MISSED THE POINT, and the MARK.

If there was no time then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous. You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change as we experience.

If this is what 'you' BELIEVE is TRUE, then I am PERFECTLY FINE with this.

Just as long as 'you' are AWARE that 'you' have NOT argued for this in a sound nor logical way. The ONLY so called "argument" that you have provided is whatever 'you' can grasp onto, which would make TO YOUR your OWN BELIEFS seem more true and more real.

And as long as you are AWARE that 'you' OWN BELIEFS could be completely and utterly WRONG or partly WRONG, then I am happy for you.

You have PROVEN that 'you' are NOT open at all, and so being CLOSED off to any thing else other than your OWN BELIEF, then it is a complete and utter waste to even 'try to' talk to 'you'.

You, after all, could NOT even comprehend and fathom the point I was making by asking you the most simplest of clarifying questions. The POINT being absolutely NOTHING what 'you' ASSUMED IT to be.

[Age]

Did you NOT understand the Truly very SIMPLE clarifying question I asked you?

If you can not work it out, the question was asked to you for you to PROVE that you are really open. You, did after all, claim that you are open, so yes, prove that you are.

Is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

No. I already argued against that: If there was no time then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous. You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change as we experience.

Are you denying that there could be any possibility at all?

Yes, "bahman" IS.

"bahman" writes; I am open to hear things from you.
I make what my intentions are PERFECTLY CLEAR when I responded: Let us see just how open you really are to hear things from me, is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

But even AFTER completely MISSING my intention here, because "bahman" was just ASSUMING I was saying some thing else, I STILL NEEDED to explain things further. BUT, "bahman" still MISSED what I was actually saying/asking and went on following "bahman's" OWN ASSUMPTION instead, which in the end led "bahman'" to reveal in "bahman's" OWN words that actually PROVED that that "one" is NOT open at all, which is Truly laughable considering the actual CLAIM that started this.

The actual power of BELIEF and ASSUMING is STILL way beyond the comprehension and understanding of most human beings, in the days of when this is being written. Even when the EVIDENCE and PROOF is here in FRONT OF THEM, in "black and white" as they say, in these very words on the screen, which is "staring them in the face" as they also say, most human beings are STILL completely unable to SEE the absolute simplicity and Truth of ALL-OF-THIS.

This makes me wonder how much longer before they start Truly understanding and SEEING?

[commonsense]

No. I already argued against that: If there was no time then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous. You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change as we experience.

Are you denying that there could be any possibility at all?

Yes, "bahman" IS.

"bahman" writes; I am open to hear things from you.
I make what my intentions are PERFECTLY CLEAR when I responded: Let us see just how open you really are to hear things from me, is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

But even AFTER completely MISSING my intention here, because "bahman" was just ASSUMING I was saying some thing else, I STILL NEEDED to explain things further. BUT, "bahman" still MISSED what I was actually saying/asking and went on following "bahman's" OWN ASSUMPTION instead, which in the end led "bahman'" to reveal in "bahman's" OWN words that actually PROVED that that "one" is NOT open at all, which is Truly laughable considering the actual CLAIM that started this.

The actual power of BELIEF and ASSUMING is STILL way beyond the comprehension and understanding of most human beings, in the days of when this is being written. Even when the EVIDENCE and PROOF is here in FRONT OF THEM, in "black and white" as they say, in these very words on the screen, which is "staring them in the face" as they also say, most human beings are STILL completely unable to SEE the absolute simplicity and Truth of ALL-OF-THIS.

This makes me wonder how much longer before they start Truly understanding and SEEING?

If it is your contention that time may exist in concept, please explain further. I am fascinated by this.

[bahman]

Did you NOT understand the Truly very SIMPLE clarifying question I asked you?

If you can not work it out, the question was asked to you for you to PROVE that you are really open. You, did after all, claim that you are open, so yes, prove that you are.

Is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

No. I already argued against that: If there was no time then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous. You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change as we experience.

Are you denying that there could be any possibility at all?

Any possibility of what? Any possibility that I am wrong? I don't think so but I would be happy to hear what you think of my argument.

[bahman]

Did you NOT understand the Truly very SIMPLE clarifying question I asked you?

If you can not work it out, the question was asked to you for you to PROVE that you are really open. You, did after all, claim that you are open, so yes, prove that you are.

Is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

No.

Therefore, absolutely NOTHING needs to be said to PROVE that 'you' are NOT open at all to hear what I have to say. So, END OF STORY.

I already argued against that:

You have, ONCE AGAIN, completely MISSED THE POINT, and the MARK.

If there was no time then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous. You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change as we experience.

If this is what 'you' BELIEVE is TRUE, then I am PERFECTLY FINE with this.

Just as long as 'you' are AWARE that 'you' have NOT argued for this in a sound nor logical way. The ONLY so called "argument" that you have provided is whatever 'you' can grasp onto, which would make TO YOUR your OWN BELIEFS seem more true and more real.

And as long as you are AWARE that 'you' OWN BELIEFS could be completely and utterly WRONG or partly WRONG, then I am happy for you.

You have PROVEN that 'you' are NOT open at all, and so being CLOSED off to any thing else other than your OWN BELIEF, then it is a complete and utter waste to even 'try to' talk to 'you'.

You, after all, could NOT even comprehend and fathom the point I was making by asking you the most simplest of clarifying questions. The POINT being absolutely NOTHING what 'you' ASSUMED IT to be.

By, open I mean that I can hear your counter-argument if there is any. So far you didn't offer anything nor try to contemplate on my argument.

[commonsense]

No. I already argued against that: If there was no time then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous. You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change as we experience.

Are you denying that there could be any possibility at all?

Any possibility of what? Any possibility that I am wrong? I don't think so but I would be happy to hear what you think of my argument.

I apologize for my vagueness. I meant any possibility that time could exist as a concept only.

It seems as though you are saying that there is no possibility whatsoever that time could exist as a concept only. Is that something you mean to say?

[commonsense]

No.

Therefore, absolutely NOTHING needs to be said to PROVE that 'you' are NOT open at all to hear what I have to say. So, END OF STORY.

I already argued against that:

You have, ONCE AGAIN, completely MISSED THE POINT, and the MARK.

If there was no time then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous. You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change as we experience.

If this is what 'you' BELIEVE is TRUE, then I am PERFECTLY FINE with this.

Just as long as 'you' are AWARE that 'you' have NOT argued for this in a sound nor logical way. The ONLY so called "argument" that you have provided is whatever 'you' can grasp onto, which would make TO YOUR your OWN BELIEFS seem more true and more real.

And as long as you are AWARE that 'you' OWN BELIEFS could be completely and utterly WRONG or partly WRONG, then I am happy for you.

You have PROVEN that 'you' are NOT open at all, and so being CLOSED off to any thing else other than your OWN BELIEF, then it is a complete and utter waste to even 'try to' talk to 'you'.

You, after all, could NOT even comprehend and fathom the point I was making by asking you the most simplest of clarifying questions. The POINT being absolutely NOTHING what 'you' ASSUMED IT to be.

By, open I mean that I can hear your counter-argument if there is any. So far you didn't offer anything nor try to contemplate on my argument.

btw, it looks to me like Age is indeed starting a counter-argument for you. I think his question (about the possibility of time existing only as a concept) is actually the first step of his counter-argument.

[bahman]

Are you denying that there could be any possibility at all?

Any possibility of what? Any possibility that I am wrong? I don't think so but I would be happy to hear what you think of my argument.

I apologize for my vagueness. I meant any possibility that time could exist as a concept only.

I don't think so.

It seems as though you are saying that there is no possibility whatsoever that time could exist as a concept only. Is that something you mean to say?

Yes.

[bahman]

Therefore, absolutely NOTHING needs to be said to PROVE that 'you' are NOT open at all to hear what I have to say. So, END OF STORY.



You have, ONCE AGAIN, completely MISSED THE POINT, and the MARK.



If this is what 'you' BELIEVE is TRUE, then I am PERFECTLY FINE with this.

Just as long as 'you' are AWARE that 'you' have NOT argued for this in a sound nor logical way. The ONLY so called "argument" that you have provided is whatever 'you' can grasp onto, which would make TO YOUR your OWN BELIEFS seem more true and more real.

And as long as you are AWARE that 'you' OWN BELIEFS could be completely and utterly WRONG or partly WRONG, then I am happy for you.

You have PROVEN that 'you' are NOT open at all, and so being CLOSED off to any thing else other than your OWN BELIEF, then it is a complete and utter waste to even 'try to' talk to 'you'.

You, after all, could NOT even comprehend and fathom the point I was making by asking you the most simplest of clarifying questions. The POINT being absolutely NOTHING what 'you' ASSUMED IT to be.

By, open I mean that I can hear your counter-argument if there is any. So far you didn't offer anything nor try to contemplate on my argument.

btw, it looks to me like Age is indeed starting a counter-argument for you. I think his question (about the possibility of time existing only as a concept) is actually the first step of his counter-argument.

I would be happy to hear his argument. Here is my argument: Events apparently don't lay at one point (events are not simultaneous), at least in our reality. Therefore, they lay on different points, on a line, so-called time.

[Age]

Are you denying that there could be any possibility at all?

Yes, "bahman" IS.

"bahman" writes; I am open to hear things from you.
I make what my intentions are PERFECTLY CLEAR when I responded: Let us see just how open you really are to hear things from me, is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

But even AFTER completely MISSING my intention here, because "bahman" was just ASSUMING I was saying some thing else, I STILL NEEDED to explain things further. BUT, "bahman" still MISSED what I was actually saying/asking and went on following "bahman's" OWN ASSUMPTION instead, which in the end led "bahman'" to reveal in "bahman's" OWN words that actually PROVED that that "one" is NOT open at all, which is Truly laughable considering the actual CLAIM that started this.

The actual power of BELIEF and ASSUMING is STILL way beyond the comprehension and understanding of most human beings, in the days of when this is being written. Even when the EVIDENCE and PROOF is here in FRONT OF THEM, in "black and white" as they say, in these very words on the screen, which is "staring them in the face" as they also say, most human beings are STILL completely unable to SEE the absolute simplicity and Truth of ALL-OF-THIS.

This makes me wonder how much longer before they start Truly understanding and SEEING?

If it is your contention that time may exist in concept, please explain further. I am fascinated by this.

If there is a thought about a word called 'time', and/or, there is a thought about what the word 'time' relates to, or some thinking occurring about what 'time' is actually, then do you agree that all of that exists in 'concept'?

If no, then how are you defining the word 'concept' here?

If yes, then do I still need to explain further?

To me, the word 'time' was thought up to explain the difference between two points like, for example, the two different points on the shadow of a stick as the earth span, relative to the light from the sun.

The word 'time' then just became the word to describe the measuring between to different agreed moments of when the earth is in relation to the light of the sun, for example, "daytime" and "nighttime".

The word 'time' then became associated with where exactly are 'we', and our our "EXACT" position, in relation to the the light of the sun.

The word 'time', then became associated with events, and thus changes.

The word 'time', then became associated with, "What is the time?", in relation to events and what is occurring.

Then, 'What is 'time' actually?' was wondered.

Now, when this is written, because the word 'time' is to closely associated with changing events, some people actually BELIEVE, with absolutely NO evidence, that 'time' is an actual physical thing, which causes things to happen.

Although the order of things I just wrote may not be exactly right, what can be seen is it is not the case that 'time' MAY exist in concept. But, actually DOES exist in concept.

Obviously the word 'time' exists, and 'what time is' is wondered. So, 'time' exists, and, exists in concept.

I just say 'time' exists in concept ONLY. I say this because from what I have OBSERVED there is NO actual thing as 'time', other than in thought and that is expressed in spoken and written WORDS, ONLY.

When, and IF, ANY one brings ANY thing along, which SHOWS that 'time' is some actual physical thing, which causes change, itself, to happen or occur, then OBVIOUSLY I will OBSERVE some thing different than I do now, when this is written.

(I could explain further, in more detail, or in another way is so liked).

[Age]

No.

Therefore, absolutely NOTHING needs to be said to PROVE that 'you' are NOT open at all to hear what I have to say. So, END OF STORY.

I already argued against that:

You have, ONCE AGAIN, completely MISSED THE POINT, and the MARK.

If there was no time then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous. You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change as we experience.

If this is what 'you' BELIEVE is TRUE, then I am PERFECTLY FINE with this.

Just as long as 'you' are AWARE that 'you' have NOT argued for this in a sound nor logical way. The ONLY so called "argument" that you have provided is whatever 'you' can grasp onto, which would make TO YOUR your OWN BELIEFS seem more true and more real.

And as long as you are AWARE that 'you' OWN BELIEFS could be completely and utterly WRONG or partly WRONG, then I am happy for you.

You have PROVEN that 'you' are NOT open at all, and so being CLOSED off to any thing else other than your OWN BELIEF, then it is a complete and utter waste to even 'try to' talk to 'you'.

You, after all, could NOT even comprehend and fathom the point I was making by asking you the most simplest of clarifying questions. The POINT being absolutely NOTHING what 'you' ASSUMED IT to be.

By, open I mean that I can hear your counter-argument if there is any. So far you didn't offer anything nor try to contemplate on my argument.

I have not YET offered any so called "counter"-argument, because I was just 'trying to' fathom how 'open' you really were FIRST. Because it took you so long for you to just answer the most simplest of yes/no clarifying question, and because you completely MISSED what was happening, we have been LOOKING AT that new issue and have been discussing that instead. I have been waiting patiently to find out thee Truth of how open or not you REALLY ARE. Since, you have PROVEN that you are NOT open at all to listening to any thing other than your OWN BELIEFS, there was and still is NO use providing an argument.

By the way, 'you' would have to provide an actual 'argument' for a 'counter-argument' to be provided also. I have YET to SEE an argument from 'you' that 'time' MUST exist otherwise there would NOT be any changes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this your argument? You did, after all, say and write;
I already argued against that:
If there was no time, then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous.
You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change as we experience.

So, is this YOUR 'argument'?

If yes, then okay.

If no, then what is YOUR 'argument'?

[Age]

Therefore, absolutely NOTHING needs to be said to PROVE that 'you' are NOT open at all to hear what I have to say. So, END OF STORY.



You have, ONCE AGAIN, completely MISSED THE POINT, and the MARK.



If this is what 'you' BELIEVE is TRUE, then I am PERFECTLY FINE with this.

Just as long as 'you' are AWARE that 'you' have NOT argued for this in a sound nor logical way. The ONLY so called "argument" that you have provided is whatever 'you' can grasp onto, which would make TO YOUR your OWN BELIEFS seem more true and more real.

And as long as you are AWARE that 'you' OWN BELIEFS could be completely and utterly WRONG or partly WRONG, then I am happy for you.

You have PROVEN that 'you' are NOT open at all, and so being CLOSED off to any thing else other than your OWN BELIEF, then it is a complete and utter waste to even 'try to' talk to 'you'.

You, after all, could NOT even comprehend and fathom the point I was making by asking you the most simplest of clarifying questions. The POINT being absolutely NOTHING what 'you' ASSUMED IT to be.

By, open I mean that I can hear your counter-argument if there is any. So far you didn't offer anything nor try to contemplate on my argument.

btw, it looks to me like Age is indeed starting a counter-argument for you. I think his question (about the possibility of time existing only as a concept) is actually the first step of his counter-argument.

Thank 'you', commonsense', for hearing, seeing, and recognizing what is actually happening here.

[Age]

Any possibility of what? Any possibility that I am wrong? I don't think so but I would be happy to hear what you think of my argument.

I apologize for my vagueness. I meant any possibility that time could exist as a concept only.

I don't think so.

It seems as though you are saying that there is no possibility whatsoever that time could exist as a concept only. Is that something you mean to say?

Yes.

I am not sure how many have noticed but this is a complete contradiction of terms.

[Age]

By, open I mean that I can hear your counter-argument if there is any. So far you didn't offer anything nor try to contemplate on my argument.

btw, it looks to me like Age is indeed starting a counter-argument for you. I think his question (about the possibility of time existing only as a concept) is actually the first step of his counter-argument.

I would be happy to hear his argument.

Why would you be happy to hear some thing, which, to you, is completely NOT even possible?

What does the word 'argument' mean to 'you', "bahman"?

Also, being 'happy' has NO relevance to being 'open'.

Here is my argument: Events apparently don't lay at one point (events are not simultaneous), at least in our reality. Therefore, they lay on different points, on a line, so-called time.

Here is 'an' argument, which is NOT 'my' argument.

Tell me if it works or not, "bahman".

Events apparently do not lay at one point (events are not simultaneous), at least in "our" reality.
Therefore, events lay on different points, on a line, so-called change, (or just "not-time").

[commonsense]

Yes, "bahman" IS.

"bahman" writes; I am open to hear things from you.
I make what my intentions are PERFECTLY CLEAR when I responded: Let us see just how open you really are to hear things from me, is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

But even AFTER completely MISSING my intention here, because "bahman" was just ASSUMING I was saying some thing else, I STILL NEEDED to explain things further. BUT, "bahman" still MISSED what I was actually saying/asking and went on following "bahman's" OWN ASSUMPTION instead, which in the end led "bahman'" to reveal in "bahman's" OWN words that actually PROVED that that "one" is NOT open at all, which is Truly laughable considering the actual CLAIM that started this.

The actual power of BELIEF and ASSUMING is STILL way beyond the comprehension and understanding of most human beings, in the days of when this is being written. Even when the EVIDENCE and PROOF is here in FRONT OF THEM, in "black and white" as they say, in these very words on the screen, which is "staring them in the face" as they also say, most human beings are STILL completely unable to SEE the absolute simplicity and Truth of ALL-OF-THIS.

This makes me wonder how much longer before they start Truly understanding and SEEING?

If it is your contention that time may exist in concept, please explain further. I am fascinated by this.

If there is a thought about a word called 'time', and/or, there is a thought about what the word 'time' relates to, or some thinking occurring about what 'time' is actually, then do you agree that all of that exists in 'concept'?

If no, then how are you defining the word 'concept' here?

If yes, then do I still need to explain further?

To me, the word 'time' was thought up to explain the difference between two points like, for example, the two different points on the shadow of a stick as the earth span, relative to the light from the sun.

The word 'time' then just became the word to describe the measuring between to different agreed moments of when the earth is in relation to the light of the sun, for example, "daytime" and "nighttime".

The word 'time' then became associated with where exactly are 'we', and our our "EXACT" position, in relation to the the light of the sun.

The word 'time', then became associated with events, and thus changes.

The word 'time', then became associated with, "What is the time?", in relation to events and what is occurring.

Then, 'What is 'time' actually?' was wondered.

Now, when this is written, because the word 'time' is to closely associated with changing events, some people actually BELIEVE, with absolutely NO evidence, that 'time' is an actual physical thing, which causes things to happen.

Although the order of things I just wrote may not be exactly right, what can be seen is it is not the case that 'time' MAY exist in concept. But, actually DOES exist in concept.

Obviously the word 'time' exists, and 'what time is' is wondered. So, 'time' exists, and, exists in concept.

I just say 'time' exists in concept ONLY. I say this because from what I have OBSERVED there is NO actual thing as 'time', other than in thought and that is expressed in spoken and written WORDS, ONLY.

When, and IF, ANY one brings ANY thing along, which SHOWS that 'time' is some actual physical thing, which causes change, itself, to happen or occur, then OBVIOUSLY I will OBSERVE some thing different than I do now, when this is written.

(I could explain further, in more detail, or in another way is so liked).

Thank you. Very well put. I thought as much, however I was at a loss when it came to expressing it.

Now, it seems to me that if it is said that time exists only as a concept, then it would be implied that time does not exist as a physical thing. How say you on this?