The Religion Discussion

[rspann]

I don't know if is me alone,but japs in Grande losing their touch. I buy last night and it wasn't like before. The other franchises don't taste like the original too.

[rspann]

Trini footballers should google football too lol

You making real sense dey.

[Clean Whistle]

Go eat yuh stale food and ketch yuh nightly chitings nuh

[Slartibartfast]

Rspann you clearly didn't read what I was responding to. Bluesclues heavily linked the passage of time to our perception of it and, by extension, how we measure it.

I'm replying on tuner, not writing a thesis so I didn't think it was needed to search for a peer reviewed journal on the topic to proove a minor sidenote that I thought was overlooked (that being that we somehow measure time according to our perception of it)

Bluesclues also talked about time being a social construct, I was trying to show that he was confusing our definition of time with time itself. I agreed with him that the definition and how we measure it are constructs but that time itself is not. Just like gravity is not, even though it is measured in meters per second per second and both of those units are man made constructs.

Anyway, say whatever you want. It's clear you lack a basic understanding of what I am saying and I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

On a different note, where have I contradicted myself or changed my position without stating that I was wrong. I know Habit7 corrected me a few times on what the bible says as he is more versed in it than I am.

[nareshseep]

Time is not a construct anymore than gravity is. What we call it and how we define it are constructs but it exists in our absence just the same. However, in an aim to standardise our definition of time, the following definition was developed.

Since 1967, the second has been defined to be: the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

Actually Slartibartfast is correct this is the SI unit of time, and the definition of time itself.

Hoss you for real? You trying to prove you are so intelligent by posting things from Google and wikipedia, in your quest to impress and not realizing you are only showing you don't understand anything . You are constantly contradicting yourself and changing positions, and now trying to define time by using a definition of a second and saying it is the standardized definition of time ? That is the standardized definition of a SECOND not time.

Why don't you Google and cut and paste an explanation of the Space time continuum and Newtons relativity and Quantum theories while you are at it so we could really understand the concept of time.

Time is defined by seconds. It is measured in seconds.
If you define a distance by a metre, the metre is a measurement of distance and a distance itself.
Same as with time.

http://bit.ly/1D8STce

True. Because time is like wealth. It has its rations and has to budgeted and its is spent. It is also a favor. If time did not exist then what would life mean

time is a construct of mortality. an immortal will not care for time. further as mentioned we have time calculated by eart revolutions within our solar system. but for another solar system time could be measured differently. especially if it takes the equivalent of 3 days to make one full revolution of night and day. in retrospect 1 day would be 180minutes at such a place and a year 1100 days etc. further again still, energy particles are not restricted by time and may travel forward or backward in time because it is only matter(mass) that is restricted from ridiculous speeds which would destabilize it and break it back down into energy. eg man couldnt travel at light speed because his body cant hold up and will disintegrate. This was explained, time is not dependant on the motion of earth around the sun. We stopped using sun dials many moons ago.

time is a measurement of change in a linear progression. if there were no changes occuring then time would not exist. but moreso the mortality factor. time is a countdown to evolution(growth), decay or extinction in our reality. a change of states. like if the earth stopped turning and the seasons stopped changing thered be no time. watches wouldnt work as they do now. we'd then only have random things to latch onto.. like how many times a day the ocean breaks on the sand, how many footsteps required to travel a specified distance etc. leaving us with a significant lack of precision. That is crap, if the earth stopped turning and moving , time will continue, the rest of the universe will continue moving.. if the entire universe stopped moving ,,, then thats a different scenario.

in short.. based on the laws of physics, matter is bound by time. only non-matter is unrestricted.
Yup Anti-matter has some strange properties

[rspann]

So distance and the unit of distance is the same thing? So is distance always measured in the same units? Do you use the same units to measure the distance to stars as we do to measure molecular structures? Distance has its own definition as does time, but it's units of measurements is something different.
Slartibart,I understand what you are saying, but on many occasions you post without really saying what you think, but just put an article,the statements you make on religious topics are sometimes not what religious people believe,that iswhy sometimes you have to be corrected. You sometimes bring new perspectives to ideas and I read all your posts,but sometimes you jump the gun. Please don't shoot the messenger.

[Slartibartfast]

Cool. Fair enough.

To answer your analogy I am saying that distance would exist even if we had no definition or units for it.

So if or earth stopped spinning, and our clocks stopped working, time would still go on at the same rate it always has.

[nareshseep]

So distance and the unit of distance is the same thing? So is distance always measured in the same units? Do you use the same units to measure the distance to stars as we do to measure molecular structures? Distance has its own definition as does time, but it's units of measurements is something different.
Slartibart,I understand what you are saying, but on many occasions you post without really saying what you think, but just put an article,the statements you make on religious topics are sometimes not what religious people believe,that iswhy sometimes you have to be corrected. You sometimes bring new perspectives to ideas and I read all your posts,but sometimes you jump the gun. Please don't shoot the messenger.

We use the the same units to measure, whether very small or very large ;- SI prefixes.
Some folks really need to be in the middle east, otherwise they fall of the edge of the earth

http://bit.ly/Zm2qwZ

[rspann]

@ slartibart You are correct,and that is my point. The metre is just the unit in theSI system,the distance exists even in the absence of that standardized measure.Distance then could be oversimplified as the physical separation between objects,just as time could be defined as a method of ordering or separating events as they occur from the past to the present to the future. The second could now be considered as the unit for the measurement of such.

[Slartibartfast]

Then why are we arguing I'd we agree? Lol

Anyway, curious to hear your guys' opinions on this

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26181615

Belgium basically legalised suicide for terminally ill children.

[bluesclues]

Time is not a construct anymore than gravity is. What we call it and how we define it are constructs but it exists in our absence just the same. However, in an aim to standardise our definition of time, the following definition was developed.

Since 1967, the second has been defined to be: the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

it still latched on to a changing state perceived to be linear and evenly divided. an alien race can easily have their hyperline observation for the plotting of time based on another atom. one that changes slower or faster. if a measurement for time was universal it could only come through a consensus. what we call universal is only local to this planet and not the universe at large. and can also be connected to the force of gravity making my solar system reference very relevant.

e.g. time appears to run faster to an external observer the nearer an object is to a blackhole. this gives rise to theories about time loops being forged by immense gravitational or electromagnetic forces.

i disagree that it exists without being perceived by sentience and a consensus agreed upon to become used as standard. if there was nothing living in the universe thered be no time. its the same philosophical question: if a tree falls in a forest and noone was around to see or hear it, did it make a sound as it fell? its expected the tree would make a sound. but because noone saw or heard it it cannot even be said to have occured in any factual notion. a sentient being would have to visit an area, see a tree fallen on the ground and then, only then can he state factually that the tree made a sound as it fell. but if noone was there when it happened and noone ever went there to see.. then no, the tree never even existed to fall and make a sound.

[bluesclues]

Time is not a construct anymore than gravity is. What we call it and how we define it are constructs but it exists in our absence just the same. However, in an aim to standardise our definition of time, the following definition was developed.

Since 1967, the second has been defined to be: the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

Actually Slartibartfast is correct this is the SI unit of time, and the definition of time itself.

Hoss you for real? You trying to prove you are so intelligent by posting things from Google and wikipedia, in your quest to impress and not realizing you are only showing you don't understand anything . You are constantly contradicting yourself and changing positions, and now trying to define time by using a definition of a second and saying it is the standardized definition of time ? That is the standardized definition of a SECOND not time.

Why don't you Google and cut and paste an explanation of the Space time continuum and Newtons relativity and Quantum theories while you are at it so we could really understand the concept of time.

Time is defined by seconds. It is measured in seconds.
If you define a distance by a metre, the metre is a measurement of distance and a distance itself.
Same as with time.

http://bit.ly/1D8STce

True. Because time is like wealth. It has its rations and has to budgeted and its is spent. It is also a favor. If time did not exist then what would life mean

time is a construct of mortality. an immortal will not care for time. further as mentioned we have time calculated by eart revolutions within our solar system. but for another solar system time could be measured differently. especially if it takes the equivalent of 3 days to make one full revolution of night and day. in retrospect 1 day would be 180minutes at such a place and a year 1100 days etc. further again still, energy particles are not restricted by time and may travel forward or backward in time because it is only matter(mass) that is restricted from ridiculous speeds which would destabilize it and break it back down into energy. eg man couldnt travel at light speed because his body cant hold up and will disintegrate. This was explained, time is not dependant on the motion of earth around the sun. We stopped using sun dials many moons ago.

time is a measurement of change in a linear progression. if there were no changes occuring then time would not exist. but moreso the mortality factor. time is a countdown to evolution(growth), decay or extinction in our reality. a change of states. like if the earth stopped turning and the seasons stopped changing thered be no time. watches wouldnt work as they do now. we'd then only have random things to latch onto.. like how many times a day the ocean breaks on the sand, how many footsteps required to travel a specified distance etc. leaving us with a significant lack of precision. That is crap, if the earth stopped turning and moving , time will continue, the rest of the universe will continue moving.. if the entire universe stopped moving ,,, then thats a different scenario.

in short.. based on the laws of physics, matter is bound by time. only non-matter is unrestricted.
Yup Anti-matter has some strange properties

we may have stopped using sun dials but measurement of time was spawned from it. we keep looking for more precise measurement to synchronize with cosmic events and with things that will have a standard behaviour throughout the universe. that is how we end up strategizing on forming a standard of measurement from radioactive decay in atoms over events unique to our solar system for the same reasons i mentioned. because all of the same type of atom will make its transitions in exactly the same period of time throughout the universe. or so it is assumed.

referencing the earth stopping turning. im referring to a universal change in the physics of solar system assembly so all planets everywhere stop revolving around their sun. so yes u can say the entire universe stops moving. there are many things man can come to a consensus on to measure time. anything that has repeat progression while changing states can be subdivided. if it isnt changing state then it cannot be used to measure time and can then said to be timeless.. or eternal. 1000 years or 1million years makes no difference to that which doesnt change state through progression(evolve) or destruction(decay).

light years for example tracks the distance a photon travels in a year. this runs on the assumption that light travels at the same speed in all conditions throughout the universe. but this has been proven to be a false assertion as it was found that light travels at different speeds through different mediums. gravitational forces can have a direct effect on the speed of light and skew the operations of time as we experience it on earth.

so what im saying is

a. if we were immortal society would be totally different and we wouldnt even need nor care for watches and time tracking inventions.

b. if there was no linear progression in the universe we would not have time as we know it as we'd have nothing that is static and evenly subdivided to latch on to for measurement and monitoring of change of states.

c. matter is bound by time as the buildingblocks(atoms) decay at linear rates, but other things such as energy particles, fields and forces are not bound by time.

d. man's soul being a construct of invisible forces is deservedly given the title timeless or eternal as it is not made up of matter, but is sentient force of energy. an energy yet unmastered in detection by science. living yet invisible and without a body. this comes from recognizing the dual construct of reality. everything has an opposite and as it seems all combinations. so matter has anti matter, dead has living, visible has invisible. then there is dead visible(matter, rocks) and dead invisible(magnetism), there is living visible(animals) and living invisible(spirit).

[RBphoto]

I don't know if is me alone,but japs in Grande losing their touch. I buy last night and it wasn't like before. The other franchises don't taste like the original too.

[/Truth]

[Habit7]

Eternity is an infinite amount of time. How can time be an opposing concept to eternity of it is used to explain it?

Eternity is not an infinite amount of time, despite what Wikipedia says. Time as a succession of moments is understood to be linear, all moving in one direction irreversible. Eternity from a philosophical perspective could be understood as one constant moment with no passage or stoppage of time. Time is subsumed within eternity but eternity has to afford some measure of timelessness. Time in and of its self has to point to some start and end to itself. Theories of the multiverse only kick the can further down the road as to when time began nevertheless any universe consists of time, matter and space all of which must coexist simultaneously.

The idea of eternity might just be to hard for us to comprehend as creatures in time. But the eternal being, who existed before time, who knows the beginning from the end, spoke the creation into being. That is why the question "who created God?" is answered very early in Genesis "In the beginning (time) God created (energy) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)" Genesis 1:1 (with my inclusions). God is the creative agent of everything, God is the source of idea and concept of things needing a Creator. Nobody created God because God is eternal and all things where created by and through Him.

[MG Man]

beacuse genesis say so?

[Habit7]

Yes.

Care to offer a better historical account of the creation of the universe?

[nareshseep]

The idea of eternity might just be to hard for us to comprehend as creatures in time. But the eternal being, who existed before time, who knows the beginning from the end, spoke the creation into being. That is why the question "who created God?" is answered very early in Genesis "In the beginning (time) God created (energy) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)" Genesis 1:1 (with my inclusions). God is the creative agent of everything, God is the source of idea and concept of things needing a Creator. Nobody created God because God is eternal and all things where created by and through Him.

Simple explanation is man created the imaginary creature called God.

[Habit7]

Simple explanation is man created the imaginary creature called God.

How do you know that?

Can you point to the ancient people group who were once stanch atheists and on a Tuesday at 4pm decided to create the "imaginary creature called God" and thus, religion has been passed down to ever subsequent population?

Are you making this up?

[MG Man]

Yes.

Care to offer a better historical account of the creation of the universe?

bahahahahahahaha historical account, de man say
and even so, because I cannot show you a better account, that automatically validates yours?
Seriously, if you wanna go down that road, Hindu scripture offers a much better account of origins of the universe...even alluding to the big bang, acknowledging existence of life elsewhere in the universe etc...your turn

[Habit7]

Yes historical account, it happened in the past.

Was the Hindu account meant to be taken literally?

So what if it mentions extra terrestrials, we have no prove of their existence.

[MG Man]

we have no proof of adam and eve either

[Habit7]

^^^Logical fallacy of tu quoque.

[Slartibartfast]

Gonna do my best to understand this and break it down for others that may be confused. Also note that words are human constructs. We made the words and give them their meanings, so you cannot assume your own meaning when it is convenient. Lucky for you, this does not seem to be one of those cases.

Eternity is an infinite amount of time. How can time be an opposing concept to eternity of it is used to explain it?

Eternity is not an infinite amount of time, despite what Wikipedia says. Both of our meanings are correct

Alternative definition - a state to which time has no application; timelessness.

Time as a succession of moments is understood to be linear, all moving in one direction irreversible. Eternity from a philosophical perspective could be understood as one constant moment with no passage or stoppage of time. Gonna have to elaborate that one for me. I'm confused about how there can be no passage of something if it has not stopped. Time is subsumed within eternity i.e. a subset of eternity (agreed) but eternity has to afford some measure of timelessness i.e. not affected by time or the passage of time. I also agree. It's like saying the universe will still be the universe if the earth did not exist because the earth is a subset of the universe but the universe is all encompassing . Time in and of its self has to point to some start and end to itself.Why does it? Theories of the multiverse only kick the can further down the road as to when time began nevertheless any universe consists of time, matter and space all of which must coexist simultaneously.No enough evidence for or against this for me to make any real argument

The idea of eternity might just be to hard for us to comprehend as creatures in time. But the eternal being, who existed before time, who knows the beginning from the end, spoke the creation into being. That is why the question "who created God?" is answered very early in Genesis "In the beginning (time) God created (energy) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)" Genesis 1:1 (with my inclusions). God is the creative agent of everything, God is the source of idea and concept of things needing a Creator. Nobody created God because God is eternal and all things where created by and through Him.This doesn't really prove anything. It still assumes that what is written in the bible is correct. (I won't argue if you want to say this is a tu quoque fallacy. But me being wrong doesn't mean you are right... and vice versa.)

[/quote]

[Slartibartfast]

^^^Logical fallacy of tu quoque.

To be fair, that's not the first mistake MG man's quoque has made and it won't be the last. Most men aren't born with enough blood to run both heads at once.

[Habit7]

When I said "no passage or stoppage of time" I meant to be dichotomic. Basically, it's unlike we experience in time.

Time measures the beginning and end of other things, why not itself? Basically physics, check out Prof Hawkins model of Big Bang.

I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was trying to put to rest the tired cliché of "who created God?"

[Slartibartfast]

Cool. But can you break in down in a way that someone can understand without having to believe in the bible (ie. purely philosophical)? As long as the answer has to be linked to the bible you will be left with needing to prove that the bible is infallible, which I think will be unfair for you to prove just to put to rest a simple matter like this.

Your explanations sound like they could use a bit of refining. As it stands, your argument seems to raise more questions than it answered.

[bluesclues]

lmao

[MG Man]

I was trying to put to rest the tired cliché of "who created God?"

how is that a cliche and not a valid question?
God is like Agent Smith when he's about to assimilate Neo, and realizes, so shid, EVERYTHING has a beginning and an and

Altho I prefer Douglas Adams' babel fish analogy

[Slartibartfast]

That and his theory on understanding the universe... if only we knew what that bowl of petunias meant...

[Habit7]

I was trying to put to rest the tired cliché of "who created God?"

how is that a cliche and not a valid question?
God is like Agent Smith when he's about to assimilate Neo, and realizes, so shid, EVERYTHING has a beginning and an and

Masked Man fallacy

Cool. But can you break in down in a way that someone can understand without having to believe in the bible (ie. purely philosophical)? As long as the answer has to be linked to the bible you will be left with needing to prove that the bible is infallible, which I think will be unfair for you to prove just to put to rest a simple matter like this.

Your explanations sound like they could use a bit of refining. As it stands, your argument seems to raise more questions than it answered.

I don't know if you realized yet but I am a Christian, my answers will consistently be influenced by the Bible especially since this the Religion Thread and we are discussing religion. Likewise you are an avowed atheist and will have you answers influenced by naturalism, uniformitarianism, and Klauss' notion that nothing is really something that everything can come from.

I am trying to be very succinct with you because when I don't you end up putting words in mouths. Words like Nazism and Confucianism is atheistic, I never said but you believe. So for both your and my good, I hope to put it to you in chewable chunks.