Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: September 22, 2020, 4:25 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Time.
#11
RE: Time.
But the problem with that is that you can't prove it's not just an endless loop of the same says and same nights over and over again. Essentially all you can do is prove that the earth went around the sun one more time, not that it has been doing so for ever and ever.
Reply
#12
RE: Time.
(February 13, 2010 at 12:40 am)Watson Wrote: But the problem with that is that you can't prove it's not just an endless loop of the same says and same nights over and over again. Essentially all you can do is prove that the earth went around the sun one more time, not that it has been doing so for ever and ever.

Bullshit, because the Earth isn't in the same relative spacial postion within the cosmos each consecutive day. Such event as lunar eclipses can be predicted and passing of other celestial bodies over centuries in the future.
Plus 1 day = 1 revolution; 1 year = 1 orbital lap of the sun.
Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
Reply
#13
RE: Time.
(February 13, 2010 at 12:40 am)Watson Wrote: But the problem with that is that you can't prove it's not just an endless loop of the same says and same nights over and over again. Essentially all you can do is prove that the earth went around the sun one more time, not that it has been doing so for ever and ever.
Don't be obtuse.

We can observe phenomena and record data to come to the conclusion that we're not just repeating days. I think you're making an unfounded claim, or just trying to ruffle feathers.

By the way, time is a system of measurement with the purpose of durations of events and their subsequent lapses. It's hard to put a definitive phrase that accurately describes it in all situations, but it can be observed, measured, and described within certain scientific contexts.

God is not time, nor is that even relevant in this argument. It's not belief in something with a lack of evidence or observable evidence, so let's leave that analogy at the door.
Reply
#14
RE: Time.
I like the duality of time. Modern human "time", as in what time it is now, is a symbol. Like a word it is an abstract system to try to define reality. But time is real, otherwise what would we be naming? I have some friends who argue that "time is not real" and I try to get them to see both sides of it. Time has to be real, there is such continuity. Causality. And time is manifest in change. Time is change, and change is time. But our human clocks are indeed not real. The duality of symbol and reality.

god is not time, to be god I think she would have to be bigger than time, or exist outside of time. If god is the creator, she was there in the pre-time/pre-space reality (if there was one).

Thanks.
Reply
#15
RE: Time.
The duality is a false dichotomy.
Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
Reply
#16
RE: Time.
(February 12, 2010 at 8:17 pm)Watson Wrote: we are moving through the universe at the speed of light; the universe itself is moving ...
Who was your physics teacher?
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#17
RE: Time.
(February 12, 2010 at 10:21 pm)Pippy Wrote: There is no such thing as a future, it hasn't happened yet, and at least the past happened once. All we have left is the fleeting moment of the present.

If the future didn't exist then how is it that matter/antimatter particles can be observed?

To come into existence they borrow energy from the future to create a particle of matter and antimatter which annihilate one another to repay the "energy debt" this happens all the time and is observable in empty regions of space. So long as the energy is payed in a time frame short enough, which is determined by Heisenburg's uncertainty principle then this is acceptable in the realm of quantum physics.
[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]
Reply
#18
RE: Time.
Watson,

Are you a Temporalogical Noncognitivist?

Rhizo
Reply
#19
RE: Time.
I don't even know what that means. I prefer not to apply labels to myself or others so as not to be constrained by them. Smile
Reply
#20
RE: Time.
(February 13, 2010 at 1:11 pm)Watson Wrote: I don't even know what that means.

...thus proving that you are. Tongue

Woot!
Rhizo
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)