Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

Even in your theory of time, time is just coordinates that reflect an exact arrangement of matter in the universe. Your would never assign two time coordinates to the same exact arrangement of matter in the universe. So, who is driving the bus? A relative coordinate or physical change? 

I know you think metaphysics is "bunk", but time is not only a scientific concept.

Let's imagine an immaterial being existing in a state of complete changelessness with absolutely nothing else in existence (a possible world if you will).  Tell me, is there a passage of time?

Let's imagine the same being then has a thought about something. And subsequently has another thought. How much time has passed between the only two changes?

Well, spacetime is the basis of the geometry. You are correct that the specific coordinates used are rather arbitrary, but the future light cone is part of the actual geometry and it is only within that light cone that causality manifests.

Time is not only a scientific concept? Really? Well, neither is chemistry, I guess. But it is, at base, a scientific concept.

In your description, you already have an internal contradiction: you have a 'being' that is changeless. Now, I might accept an *object* that is changeless, so let's go from there. if you have an object that is the only thing in the universe, with no background space or time (so it can be changeless), then there is no time. But there is also no causality *because* the universe in this model is changeless.

The being could not have a thought, because such would be a process, in other words a change. having two thoughts would also be a change, thereby destroying your whole setup as illogical.

Given that you didn't describe the spacetime geometry of said object, all we have in your scenario is two *different* objects: one with one thought and another with a different thought. Even to say they are the same object in this scenario requires the introduction of physical laws and time.

You just admitted that something needs to change for there to be time. Time does not exist without a change. I said earlier: Causality does not require time--time requires causality (events). The problem is that you want to make it a scientific concept and therefore want to drag all that baggage along about light-cone and block universe theories. Metaphysically speaking, all that is required for some type of time (which is only ever a metric) is change because otherwise there is nothing to meter off of.