Time.

[Watson]

Watson,

I'll elaborate. There is an argument that the idea of god doesn't form a meaningful impression in the mind so talking about the concept is meaningless. The argument is called theological noncognitivism and was brought to my attention on these forums by a purple rabbit from the 26th dimension and I find it highly amusing.

Read more about it here if you like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

Interesting. I find it seems to be a very weak argument, as it's logic is essentially boiled down to thus:
'Words only have meaning because we give/assign it to them."
That's a given for any language, of course. Somewhere, back down the line many hundreds of thousands of years ago, someone assigned the word 'God' to the experience they were going through. It was then consented upon by the masses that this word, 'God', was the most appropriate, and thus phased itself into modern language.

This post reminded me of that argument so I asked the question in jest. As for labels, well, regardless of whether you like them or not has no bearing on their accuracy. Mostly I was just playin' around.

Rhizo

I pretty much figured you were just playin' with the 'Woot!' Still, labels can be accurate in terms of representing certain key features of an individual, but a person is bound to have thoughts, ideas, and take actions outside of that label at some point(it is human nature) and thus cannot be within that label any longer. As a free-thinker, I can have no term applied to me.

Okay, now back to the subject of time:
If time exists in the sense that you claim it does, I want several things:
-I want to see verifiable evidence of time
-I want a clear definition of what 'time' is.
-I want to see an example of time being demonstrated in a lab.

Please, provide, and we'll go from there.