Oh Huggy, why do you try to justify a 'god' who makes inherently flawed people but comes up with a nifty plan to save them provided they fawn over Him sufficiently .. when that is so unlikely to happen unless they are indoctrinated into such belief by their parents or else fall for the crooked logic of the apologist missionaries. It would be a stupid plan. But of course the whole story is bogus bullshit so who even cares? Lady d' Camus?

(June 19, 2017 at 12:32 pm)Cyberman Wrote:

(June 18, 2017 at 9:26 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Didn't read my response to LFC?

Let me ask you something, do you disagree with the statement "time is relative"?

It depends on how you're using it. I don't disagree with the scientific understanding of the concept, but I may disagree with yours. That's why I've been asking you to explain what you mean by relative time. I'm just trying to nail your trousers to the mast.

I've said nothing that contradicts science in any way, it would seem that you're attempting to argue semantics.

I've stated that time is relative; that is a fact, what you seem to want is an explanation of the mechanics, which is irrelevant.

Now, if you believe that time is not relative, then come out and say so.

---

(June 19, 2017 at 1:12 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(June 18, 2017 at 8:36 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Time is not a basic measure, it's relative, meaning it can be measured differently according to point of view which is EXACTLY what the scripture 'defines'.

Do you guys lose the ability to apply basic reasoning skills when it comes to discussing anything Bible related?

I don't think "time is a direction in four dimensional spacetime, so I am not late in my relativity" would cut any ice with my boss. Time is used as a standard measure all the time.  a year is a year the world over.

(June 19, 2017 at 3:00 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(June 19, 2017 at 12:32 pm)Cyberman Wrote: It depends on how you're using it. I don't disagree with the scientific understanding of the concept, but I may disagree with yours. That's why I've been asking you to explain what you mean by relative time. I'm just trying to nail your trousers to the mast.

I've said nothing that contradicts science in any way, it would seem that you're attempting to argue semantics.

I've stated that time is relative; that is a fact, what you seem to want is an explanation of the mechanics, which is irrelevant.

Now, if you believe that time is not relative, then come out and say so.

---

(June 19, 2017 at 1:12 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I don't think "time is a direction in four dimensional spacetime, so I am not late in my relativity" would cut any ice with my boss. Time is used as a standard measure all the time.  a year is a year the world over.

So is it your argument that a year is not a year? Or are you just a fan of star trek.

I've already said that I accept the scientific understanding of relative time, so don't twist that into my believing that time isn't relative. If all you're going to say is "time is relative", then you might as well say "water is wet" for all the agreement we have. I'm just saying that what you think it means isn't what it does mean; which is a huge deal if you want to say you're not contradicting science. And you think that the mechanics aren't relevant? I wonder why that could be...

(June 19, 2017 at 7:49 pm)Cyberman Wrote: I've already said that I accept the scientific understanding of relative time, so don't twist that into my believing that time isn't relative. If all you're going to say is "time is relative", then you might as well say "water is wet" for all the agreement we have. I'm just saying that what you think it means isn't what it does mean; which is a huge deal if you want to say you're not contradicting science. And you think that the mechanics aren't relevant? I wonder why that could be...

Look, all I've stated is that "time is relative" and just like your example of comparing it to the statement of "water is wet", neither statement should require any further explanation.

(June 18, 2017 at 8:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(June 18, 2017 at 8:40 pm)Cyberman Wrote: Please explain relative time.

What else is there to explain?

If I stated "water is wet", would you ask me what I meant by that? Would I need to explain the mechanics of wet water?

Why don't you do us all a favor and tell me what you seem to think I think "relative time" means...

---

(June 19, 2017 at 5:41 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(June 19, 2017 at 3:00 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I've said nothing that contradicts science in any way, it would seem that you're attempting to argue semantics.

I've stated that time is relative; that is a fact, what you seem to want is an explanation of the mechanics, which is irrelevant.

Now, if you believe that time is not relative, then come out and say so.

---

So is it your argument that a year is not a year? Or are you just a fan of star trek.

What if you lived on a different planet?

I've said, three times now, that I accept the scientific understanding of relative time. Is that the same as yours?

In fact I'll break it down for you.

What do you mean by time?

In what way is it relative? To what?

(June 19, 2017 at 9:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(June 19, 2017 at 7:49 pm)Cyberman Wrote: I've already said that I accept the scientific understanding of relative time, so don't twist that into my believing that time isn't relative. If all you're going to say is "time is relative", then you might as well say "water is wet" for all the agreement we have. I'm just saying that what you think it means isn't what it does mean; which is a huge deal if you want to say you're not contradicting science. And you think that the mechanics aren't relevant? I wonder why that could be...

Look, all I've stated is that "time is relative" and just like your example of comparing it to the statement of "water is wet", neither statement should require any further explanation.

(June 18, 2017 at 8:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: What else is there to explain?

If I stated "water is wet", would you ask me what I meant by that? Would I need to explain the mechanics of wet water?

Why don't you do us all a favor and tell me what you seem to think I think "relative time" means...

---

(June 19, 2017 at 5:41 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: So is it your argument that a year is not a year? Or are you just a fan of star trek.

What if you lived on a different planet?

You didn't simply state it; you put it forth as an answer for something. We are asking you to explain your answer.

(June 19, 2017 at 9:34 pm)Cyberman Wrote: In fact I'll break it down for you.

What do you mean by time?

In what way is it relative? To what?

Oh, so now I have to explain time too?

Look a light year is the distance it takes light to travel in an year correct? So from your point of view it takes a year for light to travel that distance, from a photons point of view, it's instantaneous, no time has elapsed.

Hence time is relative... got it?

I understand frames of reference, thank you. Please continue.