So, we agree as to what time is.
No, we don't and you knew this when you wrote it.
What time is has been made complex because of relativity.
Complex isn't the right word. Irrational would be a better word for what Einstein has done to the concept of time.
Absolute time is past, present, and future.
That is a meaningless sentence.
God existed before he created the world so the creation of the world was in God's future.
Not in any REAL sentence, though. The future does not exist, neither does the past. Existence is now and only now. The only sense in which your statement is true is within the context of the
concept of time.
Having created the world, the creation of the world is now in God's past.
Same as above. This is true within the context of the concept of time. The past does not exist ontologically.
This is the bases for the open view.
No, it is not.
Our universal clock, the way we measure the passage of time, was created by God as days.
There is no such thing as a universal clock.
Webster: concept as in
idea: something imagined or pictured in the mind
Antonyms & Near Antonyms
A mere concept, thought, and idea are things that are not fact, not real, or actualized, but thoughts can be about things that are facts and that are real.
So, love, righteousness and justice aren't factual, nor real, nor actualized?
This error is known as an appeal to definition fallacy because it is a misuse of the dictionary definition in a manner that presupposes that every word in the dictionary definition applies to every use of the word being defined. Some concepts aren't factual, some ideas aren't actual, some ideas are purely fantasy and total fiction but that isn't what defines them as ideas or abstractions. It is the fact that they exist inside a thinking mind is that makes them concepts, whether they have a counterpart that exists independent of that that thinking mind or not.
Some concepts exists as both concepts and actual things. Language, for example, can be discussed in terms of the general idea of systematic communication or as an actual extant language that can be written, read or spoken. Fruit is another excellent example of something that exists as both a concept and an actual thing. Apples and grapes and peaches are fruits that actually exist apart from anyone interacting with them or even knowing that they exist. They exist independent of anyone's mind. Conversely, illegally obtained evidence can be thrown out of court and anything associated with that evidence can be spoken of as "fruit of the poisonous tree", an expression that utilizes the concepts of not only fruit but of trees as well. When you speak in those terms, there is no tree there is no poison and there is no fruit. It is a figure of speech that utilizes those CONCEPTS. It is a mental exercise that communicates real information that is both useful and important in spite of the fact that there is no poison tree that actually exists.
The distinction I am making by saying that time doesn't exist and that it is a concept has to do with ontology. A concept is an idea, a mental construct, or an abstraction. It doesn't have physical presence or objective reality outside of the mind, whereas ontological existence doesn't rely on perception or thought. A rock exists whether or not anyone is there to perceive it. In short, a concept exists in the realm of ideas and depends on cognition, while something that exists ontologically is part of actual reality, independent of thought or perception.
More confusing mumbo jumbo. I have absolutely no idea what you are saying here.
I do not believe you.
The word "moment" is a time word, David. It has no meaning except within the context of time.
The word "Place" is a space word. It has no meaning outside of the context of space.
It's no different that trying to talk about yellow darkness. Yellow presupposes light and so yellow darkness is a contradiction. Likewise, "moment" presupposes time and "place" presupposes space. If, as you postulated, there was no time or space then rather than everything happening at one moment and in one place, nothing would happen at all because there would be no moment or place for it to happen at. Indeed, the very concept of something "happening" presupposes time because you'd be talking about an event and "everything happening" presupposes multiple events. Events that will have had duration, if they happened at all. Indeed, existence itself presupposes duration and so there can be no such thing as existence "outside of time" for more than one reason. Not only is time not a thing or substance one can exist inside of to begin with but the very notion commits a stolen concept fallacy because existence implies duration, which presupposes the concept of time.
I may not always say what is correct, so I don't mind correction, but I always write with clarity.
I reread the post. It was perfectly clear. I missed the apostrophe in the word "concept's" but that wouldn't have been enough to confuse anyone sufficient to call it "mumbo jumbo". If you misunderstand something, then simply ask for clarification.
I asked a question before that you ignored. I want you to answer it.
Love is an idea. Is love real?
It is an important question because it gets to the real point which isn't about concepts, per se but about ontology. I say that love is very real but that it does not exist ONTOLOGICALLY! Likewise, time and space are real in so far as they are real ideas that are both meaningful and useful, even necessary, but neither exists ONTOLOGICALLY; meaning they do not have their own independent existence outside of a thinking mind.
