This is only for those people who say time exists, but ask for evidence of god's existence.If you are not one among them, this is not for you.
So what is the evidence that time exist?
Or better still, what is TIME?
Don't tell me the clock is time, what the clock does is showing a number which make sense to us, as it is synchronized to the motion of sun, either directly or indirectly. If you still think clock is time, if my clock slowed, does that mean time slowed?
Time is that which allows motion and actions to occur. Without time nothing would move and nothing could happen. An example of my meaning is that radiation would cease from a block of uranium if time would stop.
A clock is no more time than a ruler is distance. They both simply measure those factors, using designations defined by man. There is nothing sacred about a second, or an inch - they are arbitrary "lengths" of what is measured.
If your clock slowed it would mean either that the clock is defective or that time slowed. If you are in the same time frame as the clock (it changes with gravity, velocity and perhaps other attributes) you could not tell directly; whatever is in the human mind that measures time would be affected as well.
If, however, an outside observer watched your clock it would be apparent that time has slowed. Examples are clocks carried by the space shuttle that move quickly and for which time passes at a different rate. Even radiation has found to happen at a different rate as the earth gets closer to the sun and it's gravity increases (potential problems for those on radiation treatment here).
For the million dollar question, though, what does that have to do with Gods existence?
If everything moves because of time, then the theist's claim is also valid, everything exist because of god.
Is it because of time, that sun moves or are we taking the motion of sun as time?
Even a calendar that is calculated with the most accurate atomic clock has to be adjusted to the motion of sun.
If clock is not time, then how does the slowing of it make slowing of time?
If motion affect everyclock designed by man then we can only say our clock is deffective. Like every ruler is affected by temperature, it is akin to say, as the temperature increased the length of ruler, length increased.
You haven't given a proper definition of time(i don't know the definition)nor gave evidence of existence of time?
Come on now, Jomine - nearly every sentence you posted is false. You know better than to use such muddy reasoning.
The theist's claim has absolutely no connection to the results of time that I can see. What am I missing; please expand the statement with more detailed reasoning.
Time does not cause things to move and I didn't say it did. It merely supplies the opportunity for force to cause movement.
Time does not cause the sun to move, nor to do we take that motion around the galaxy as time.
No calendar or clock is adjusted to the movement of the sun. Calendars are adjusted periodically (including the time indicated on your clock) because early measurements of time were not accurate to the point they are today. We did not know just how long it took the earth to rotate, for instance. Yes, it takes 24 hours but we didn't know it actually takes 24.00000001 hours (or whatever it is). The length of a second is no longer defined by the motion of the earth.
The comparison of a clock changing to a ruler changing is valid to a point. However, it is not necessarily a clock that is changing; it is time itself and the clock is still measuring it accurately. I'm sure I've seen other postings of yours indicating that you understand time dilation, at least at a laymans level.
I can't give an exact definition either, just point out some of the attributes and results. It is a fourth dimension and is so treated mathematically, or so I understand. It is variable, changing by where in space it is measured and by where the observer is. Theory has it that it did not exist before the big bang, just as mass, all the laws of nature, and energy did not.
Evidence of existence of time is just what I said; movement and actions can occur and this requires time. Not as a causal relationship but as a opportunistic one.
Pray, how is that?
Theists claim that everything exist, because of a creator who created it. Everything in existence is the "evidence" of the creator. You too are essentially claiming in similar lines, that motion is the evidence of time, without explaining why.
"Time is that which allows motion and actions to occur". This is your sentence, and that is what I understood from it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Sorry for being unclear. I didn't mean the motion of sun, I mean't the motion of sun from our reference frame, that is the rotation and revolution of earth.Time is a concept we derived to incorporate rotation and revolution of earth to accurately calculate the day and night and the seasons. The one who did it first arbitrarily gave the 24hr time period, it could as well have been 20 or 30 hours. So essentially it is the motion of sun as viewed from earth.
Every calender is adjusted(eg:- leap year we add one day) to synchronize with the sun. Every clock is corrected to the sun, otherwise we would face the same problem the ancients faced, the seasons will come at different times of year and our ability to predict tomorrow to organize ourselves is lost(which is the prime use of calendar).
There is the problem. As long as we do not know what time, is how can we know whether it changed. All we see is the clock giving a different reading. So it is only the clock that changed. If I use the your example, will the change of a ruler length, change length. The length that is taken with that particular ruler may be different, that is why we always standardize the meter, though we still haven't come across a ruler that is absolutely not affected by anything. So does that make length increased?
Dimension? As far as I'm aware there is only three dimensions. What they say as dimension is actually different locations.
Motion occur and the two locations of an object(sun) we call time. Or say two locations of our second or minute pointers(in a watch) we call time, so how that is a thing or how that exist? isn't it just a concept, just like our meter, or kilogram that we use and the value what we assume?
As you say, theists argue that a creator created everything and that everything is therefore evidence of a creator. A completely circular reasoning path that has no logical existence.
Consider a thing; a mass, an object. It moves from point A to point B. If the motion takes no time (because time doesn't exist) then it has moved instantaneously and we know that can't happen (speed of light). Bear in mind that I speak of the macro world and not the quantum world, which follows different laws. The object did not move instantaneously and therefore took time to make the move; time exists. All motion takes time to accomplish; time is thus a prerequisite for movement. If it were not so all objects would occupy both point A and point B (and all points in between) at the same moment; it would be everywhere at once. This does not happen.
I think I explained the necessity of adjusting calendars, just as you did. A day was considered to be 86,4000 seconds, but with increasing accuracy and different methods of defining the length of a second we now find that it is not exactly that figure. Thus calendars must be adjusted.
We know that time changed because of movement. You cannot walk from home to the lake in 0 time, yet you did make that walk. Therefore time changed.
Yes, length can also change (increasing speed) just as time can. An observer on a spaceship moving at high speed uses a ruler to measure the length of the ship, but an observer outside the ship will get a different measurement. It is as variable as time.
The english language, and most people, differentiate between time and the recognized spatial dimensions but the language of physics and math does not necessarily do so. The last I heard, there are at least 6 dimensions necessary to explain the universe; time is one, the three spatial dimensions are three more and the other two are used only in esoteric physics and mathematical language. The english word "dimension" does not correlate very well with the reality, but it is the best we have.
Time is no more just a concept than linear dimensions or distance. We have, rather arbitrarily, assigned measurements to those things, but they most definitely exist.
Two adjustments I'll add. The motion from A to B, that is the two locations of matter(location A and B) is called time, not the other way round. Time started as a description of the two location of a standard object, "The Sun"(from earth). The two locations of sun gave as time.
Now the second one is regarding "exist". Does time exist like love or god exist or does time exist like chair or earth exist? (I think you can make out the difference. The former is concept, has no physical presence, while the latter is having physical presence). Basically the problem occurs, not because the inadequacy of language but the incorrect use, or lack of definition. The word exist has so many meanings. Unless I specify which meaning I used, you can only guess and not get the idea I meant. That is why there is a need for definition- to convey meanings clearly and unambiguously. So the meaning for exist will be having a physical presence. So time does not exist, as time is a concept. As it is a concept, it can never slow, dilate or expand. It only have the value we assign to it. If you say time does any of these, that means time is an object. Then certainly it should have a shape and location.
I don't contend that what observer observe is different. What an observer observe depends on his vision and mental balance. IF I take some brandy I can also make time dilate or length contract without any space travel. Does that make it anymore real? Eliminate the observer. What we are interested in is, whether time or length REALLY changed.
The problem is not with the language, it is with the incorrect use of it. Even the most celebrated scientist can never think with out the help of language, let alone convey his ideas meaningfully. Mathematics can only describe never explain, while physics is all about explaining. Secondly any scientist should be able to visualize what he is studying. How is he going to visualize time or the 6th dimension? The word dimension and time very well correlate with reality. Dimension is regarding the architecture of any object, and the three dimensions are length, width and height and the three are mutually perpendicular. You can identify the location of the given object in relation to another, 3 co-ordinates are used to locate an object. Two locations of an object, we call time. Where is the inadequacy?
If it is a concept, it does not exist, at least, in the physical world. Concept is a thought and without somebody to think, there is no thought. Consider for a second you have memory loss, can't remember anything, what is time for you?
Consider an isolated atom, what is time for it? If there is only one object in the whole universe, what is time then?
A lot to cover here. Let's see...
Motion is not time; motion consists of speed and direction (definition of velocity). While time is a part of speed it is only a part with the other part being space. Direction is solely space based.
Time is not just a concept dreamed up by humanity. The measurement of time could be loosely classified that way, but far too many things depend on time. The speed of light, for instance. Under given conditions it will travel x distance in y time - this is not a human concept. It is from the physical laws of the universe.
I believe we understand each other with regards to language and communication. The english language could be made to discuss such things, but it isn't. Too many meanings per word, and none that really fit. We must therefore do what we can and hope that the listener uses the same definition we do. The word "dimension" is a case in point; it can be the width in inches of a wooden box, or it can be one of the three spatial dimensions we all know, experience and understand. It can also, in the world of physics and math, be something else that we have no common place referent for, but it is the best word we have.
An example here. We all know of a two dimensional chart; the mileage charts between cities on a map is one such. Now throw in a third dimension, say temperature. We could make additional charts, one for each degree of temperature, say 0 to 100 or 100 charts total all stacked on top of each other. We can visualize that, even if it isn't very useful. Add time now. We could make a video of each chart, noting that each individual one changes with time. The temperature changes with seasons and maybe the town up and moves as well. So far, so good, but now add one more "dimension" and we're lost. No physical referent, no way to visualize how that fifth dimension might be depicted or used. We've reached our limit unless we simply note that it exists and can be explained, studied and thought about through other languages, such as math.
Along about here, I might mention that 3 dimensions are not enough to locate an object. Given a universe wide system of coordinates, each object moves in relation to every other. Even two pebbles on the same beach move that way. It thus takes an additional dimension, time, to determine the location of any object. Just ask any astronomer searching for a particular star.
Ovservers; I do not refer to the changes in time recognition that altering either persons or a single persons ability to judge time. Rather I refer to changes in time itself, with each observer using instruments unaffected by the observers state of mind.
Can a scientist studying quarks visualize one? How about a photon or radiation levels? Or maybe potential energy? S/he may use an inadequate and untrue visualization, just as a drawn cube is a depiction of a true 3-dimensional cube but that's about all. It very often has only the most tenuous connection to reality.
An interesting thought of a one object universe, and I would have to say there is no time. The object cannot move; there is nothing else to judge that movement by and thus it didn't happen. I assume it doesn't change, like a radioactive block of uranium. I assume that it doesn't contain discrete particles like atoms that move or change in relationship to each other. In that kind of case, I would have to say there is no time. If you could take a glass of fizzing drink (coke) and stop time for a cubic yard all around it (a local stasis of time, if you will) it would be in the same fix although for a different reason. Nothing can move; no fizzing, no CO2 coming out, no change in temperature, nothing. These things all take time and without that they cannot happen.
The change of location on object is called motion, isn't it? Suppose an object take one minute or 1000mt to move from one location to another, still it moves. So speed is not of any concern. The change in location is time. The distance traveled is motion. Say the time taken by sun to reach the Greenwich Meridian, once it leaves GM is one day. Irrespective of the speed of rotation of earth, it still is one day. From that all our calculations start. We with the help of a watch divide it into equal divisions of hour, minute , seconds and so on...
What is light? We only changes the definition of time to incorporate the so called motion of light, nothing else, it still is motion. We use atomic clocks to co-ordinate our technology. When the clock does not fit the revolution/rotation of earth, we adjust the clock, not the earth.
Here is the incorrect use of language. We can use the word anyway we want in common parlance. But in scientific talk, we can't. In every dissertation all the crucial words are defined before the presentation. Dimension corresponds to orientation, so it can only be said for an object. There is no dimension for space.
I can add the dimension of love to, does it make any sense?
Define dimension correctly and use it consistently there won't be any problem. If you use dimension for everything then confusion arises. If dimension represents the architecture, you should use the word only for that. Temperature, time or love has nothing to do with architecture. Time has to do with location, but not dimension.
Whenever we say location, its always in reference to another object, not all the objects in the universe. When you say your pen is on the table, the relation is only between the table and pen, not earth, sun or stars.
The two locations of the pen on your table when it moves it is taken as time, there is no need of any dimension there. But your standard reference is sun, and we are so accustomed to it, we describe all time based on sun(we could as well have used moon) - to standardize. Otherwise we will have too many times which will carry no meaning.
Then what is changing is the reading of an instrument. All instruments are affected by gravity..which will change depending on gravity, then how will we standardize? How will we know, the change is not the change of clock, but time?
Will the scientist who study any of these can bring it to his lab for study?
A scientist study existence, and anything that exist has a shape and we are able to visualize, otherwise how do you think they drew the atom, after seeing it?
You first agree time is a concept, now telling me it can be freezed. How do you freeze concepts?
Love is a concept, but has a definite effect on us(though, in reality, the effects we call love), does that mean we can freeze love?
No, change in location (motion) is not time. Motion is typically measured in distance traveled (meters) or distance traveled per second (meters per second). If you want precision measurements you must include direction (giving velocity) which will include at least one set of coordinates (polar) or two sets (cartesian). In no case is motion measured in seconds, which time is. They are not the same.
Yes, we use atomic clocks to measure time, based on the rate of decay of radioactive material. We adjust those clocks to fit a day, but what we do not do is change the length of a second. Rather we add or subtract seconds to the calendar to make the calendar fit when the sunrise is. We recognize that time has not changed, just what we want to call 7:00 AM and that it happens because 24.000000 hours does not make a day. It is convenient to change the calendar but we in no way change time or the measurement of time. When leap year happens and we add a full day it is now one more calendar day between January and March. The length of a second hasn't change, we just add an extra day to the calendar for our convenience in every day life . If we didn't we would find winter in June in a couple of hundred years because a year isn't 365 days as we used to think it was.
I use the term dimension because it is the best word I can think of to fit the fact. If you wish to call it "qower" then we can use that word instead.
Location is not merely dependent on the relative spacing of two objects. We live in a three dimensional space and it requires three measurements to determine any location. In addition, relative location will require not only coordinates for one of the objects, but coordinates for the other as well. If they are in motion relative to each other a fourth measurement of time will be required. A pencil on the table will require that you know that the table is NW (based on cartesian coordinates of longitude and latitude) of you and that it is sitting on the same level floor (relative to the center of earth) you are standing on. That's three coordinates. If the table is being pulled across the floor you will have to continuously change that NW angle and how fast it is moving. That makes the fourth measurement (meters per second).
Instruments, for our convenience, are based on being on earth. We assume the clock is not malfunctioning. When an astronauts clock no longer agrees with one on earth we know why (gravity and speed) and can "correct" it to match earth based clocks. That doesn't make it wrong - it just means than under the conditions which it operated time changed and we have to recognize that change. It's how GPS works - we adjust those space born clocks daily and look at the difference between that and an earth clock to determine location.
No one has ever seen an atom, yet we draw pictures of it. Those pictures are horribly wrong, but they generally serve their limited purpose.
Time is a concept only in the same manner that mass or energy is. It is not something dreamed up by humanity but an actual property of our universe. It is a thing (again a very poor use of language) just the same as a material object, a photon wave, gravity or energy are although it is none of these.
How does the existence of continuity of experience (time) relate in any way to whether there is a god?
how does one get to understand time if he has no clue as to what the beginning is?
dont you know beginning is the beginning of timw itself?
and the end is the end also of time?
Yet the beginning nor the end is not time in themselves
so search at the beginning there you will find that which time is comprised of....and that which is in the end is exactly the same as the beginning.
and now tell me all those who run around trying to make full use of time......how on earth can you use time properly if you have no clue as to what it is?
The knowledge of God is also the understandng of Time to not know one is also to remain ignorant of the other...
Why go to the trouble of conversing with someone who thinks this is an acceptable way to reply?
Jomine, time is space and space is time hence the term space-time. Space is the evidence that time exist. Without space there would not be time. The popular cosmologist Stephen Hawking even came up with the bold conclusion that time did not exist before the Big Bang simply because there was no space. He also said the God could not exist because nothing cannot exist before time and the following conclusion he made from this statement is that there was no God to create the universe. You cannot have cause before effect. This is the universal law of the universe. You must have a cause before an effect and for that to happen you must have time. This is also the reason why traveling back in time is probably impossible.
This is where the concept of time comes back into the picture. Everything that occurs in the universe occurs in space-time. If there is no space there is no time. A black hole is a good example of this. Time stops in a black hole because space is compressed to an infinitesimal point called a singularity. The Big Bang itself started from a similar singularity. There was no time before the Big Bang because there simply was no space for time to exist.
Another evidence of time is that time slows down near a massive object in space. Time near Earth moves slower than the time where the GPS satellites are orbiting the Earth because of the curvature of the space-time fabric. Space curves more as you get closer to the Earth's surface so the time on the GPS satellites moves faster so it must be corrected in order for the satellites to compute correctly our positions on the Earth's surface. We cannot perceive this slowing down of time on Earth because we are in the same time frame. It has to be observed outside of that time frame in order for us to see the effect of time running slower. This is the reason we know the clocks on the GPS satellites are running faster because we are seeing them from outside of the satellite's time frame. The satellites are in a different time frame. The point here is that time exist because of the existence of space that makes up the entire universe.
the TIME has a lot of meaning, did someone prove of our existence!? then if someone traces the roots it means those things rely on the existing of GOD.
Sorry Melpor, what you say does not make sense to me. You say it is a concept. If it is a concept, it need conceiving by an intelligent brain. So either a god or human must have been there to conceive time. So if you rule out god , what is left is human, who appeared only later. That means either god was there or time started "existing" only recently. Another problem is that, if it is a concept, how can you say it started from big bang only. If you use a stopwatch at the beginning of a race, what you can say is that the watch started showing time only from the race and the race started at zero time on the watch, not time started at the beginning of the race. The supposed big bang is also similar to the race. so there is no point in saying time started from big bang, what we can say is we started calculating time from big bang.
You also say space is time, then why use two different words? As far as I know time is what we calculate by the motion of earth. When it complete one rotation we call it a day and one revolution we call it a year. If we were in some other planet it will not be the day we calculate on earth but the day and year depending on the rotation and revolution of that planet, but we may give the 24hrs to a day, who knows?
Space is our conceptualization of nothing, the static distance between two objects, which gives shape to objects, which help us discern one object or surface from another. So how can space be time? If space is nothing(absence of everything), void, the expanse, how can it be created? Nothing is always there, whether something is there or not, so isn't it oxymoron to say space exist, or space is compressed or space is curved?
Ok, I agree space is something, then onus is on you tell what space is. You'll also have to tell what is that which gives shape to "space", for it to be something.
Having read through this thread, it appears that no answer will suffice. I have a follow up question. Do you think some people appear to be educated above their level of intelligence? Some of the questions on these forums lend credence to that conclusion. Imho.
When you cannot differentiate between reality and imagination, I do not know what answer will satisfy you.
You're right - no answer will suffice.
Yes, some are educated beyond their intelligence; they can spout facts and figures but have no real understanding of their meaning.
Others insist that education cannot change their common sense. The earth is flat, everyone knows that as a common sense thing, and traveling around it won't change that knowledge.
Still others insist that the limitations of language (English in particular) imply the same limitations exist in our universe. Because we can't talk about it in words that match reality means that reality is wrong. This thread is an example of this fallacy; Jomine has asked for a definition and explanation of time, but at a level that cannot be adequately described in English. It's all most of have, so we try to explain and understand, but it is pitifully inadequate.
Well, I will say you've done a fine job of trying. I thought your explanations were very well put.
What is this reality? There are objects in the universe and they are in constant motion, is there anything more than that? Whatever else you know, is explained or described to you, with the help of language, by your parents, teachers or some other(like your own thoughts and visualizations). If the language is inadequate, that means your understanding is inadequate, as it is through the medium of language, you think. You chose to reject the priests because they used simple language and were able to understand what they said was nonsense, but when the same people used esoteric language, language that can mean anything, and you derived a meaning of your own choosing(not essentially what they meant), you accepted it, whether it carried any merit or not!
Just take the word time. Do you understand it or visualize it.
Now take dimension, what do you understand?
Yes, I and everyone else has inadequate knowledge. Unless you know absolutely everything?
I have learned some of the language of mathematics and of physics; it gives me a limited understanding, but far more than english can. Part of the reason why is that those languages cannot have multiple meanings, which the english language all too often does. The numeral 2 does not mean 2 today, 3 tomorrow and 2 1/2 when used by someone else. English does.
The priests use words that are indeed nonsense in that the meaning of those words does not fit reality as we see it. Nor do the logical derivations of their hypothesis follow. Even when one has learned the religious jargon and understands the meaning of the words when used by the priest, the reasoning used isn't valid. Your own reasoning above is indicative of that: Gods existence is evidenced by the assumption that He created everything; the unproven and unaccepted assumption is then used to prove His existence. Yes, if He created everything then He exists (or at least did at one time) but when the assumption is faulty so is the derived logical conclusion. GIGO.
Time: I have only a poor understanding of it, and cannot visualize it. A mental picture is not possible because it does not have a physical representation in the three dimensions we can see and therefore visualize.
Dimension can only be defined mathematically as a direction of space-time that is at right angles to all other dimensions. An extremely poor definition but the best I can think of using words and again most dimensions cannot be visualized as our senses cannot detect them. We can discuss them mathematically, and with words to a very limited degree. We can even model a fourth (spatial) dimension the same we can draw a cube on a two dimensional surface, but we cannot really visualize them.
That is where definition comes!!
If it does not have a physical representation, then how does it exist?
Where are you going to put the 4th right angle that is perpendicular to all other angles? I'll give you a cube, can you draw a line that is right angle to all other three dimensions?
Lots of things don't have a physical representation - energy, gravity, radiation, time, the "string" in string theory, etc. That doesn't mean they aren't there or that we can't feel their effect.
You make my point for me. Time is at right angles to the 3 spatial dimensions, but you can't point to that direction. At least not in 3 dimensional space; a good thing that the space we live in has at least 6 dimensions. Again, we can't see them and thus have a really hard time visualizing them or getting a mental grasp on what they are but they are there regardless of that.
I was debating myself whether to reply or not and against my better judgement...
If there is no physical representation, then how does these "exist"? Without physical representation how does all these cause "effects"?
What is causing the effect, ghosts or spirit?
Can you spot the difference between air and wind? Wind is the motion of air molecules, that is, wind is a concept, the name given by US to the motion of air molecules. What exist is the molecules and what happen is the they change location, which when strike our body we "feel" the "effect" or when it strike leaves we "see" the "effect". It does not mean wind exist, it means air moves.
energy: is the ability to do work, what something has not what something is! It means so many different meanings to so many people, but still is a concept. It it did exist, it might have different names, but the meaning would be same.(just like an apple is called by different names, still is an apple)
gravity: What is gravity? The medium of gravity should exist, otherwise it is just religious to accept, two non discrete objects attract each other by- magik!
radiation: radiation is a verb, it is what something does, not something is-a concept.
the "string" in string theory:-garbage
Here you are doing just as fine as a religious arguing for his gods presence. You can't point out the direction, you can't visualize or imagine it, yet you say there is more than 3 dimensions(you agree it should be at right angles!!), in REAL WORLD.Mathematical representation you ask, take the x,y,z axis of a graph, in which ever direction, other than these three, you draw a axis, its never at right angles to all the three, then how can such a stuff occur in nature?
One more thing, dimension is an intrinsic property of an object, not space. Space has no dimensions, when ever we say dimension to space we imagine an object and imagine it.
Time!! Which was first conceived day or second. Ancient man had only day, then at some point it was divided into morning, noon and evening based on sun. At some point, as human transactions became more and more complex, he found out that putting a sun dial and marking the shadow and assigning numbers to the shadow will help people to arrange themselves better. Some intelligent fellow found that they can synchronize the movement of sun to an instrument, there came the watch and along with it minute and second.
As technology advanced it became imperative to calculate the rotation of earth more and more accurately and hence we developed atomic clocks and all, yet still at the end of the day we HAVE to correct the clock to the rotation of the earth, as nature is not working for us, but we working for us, has to take all its vagaries in our stride! And if we fail to adjust the clock or calendar, telling "time exist", we will find that "time" does not carry any meaning to us, regardless of its "existence".
What we call time is just the rotation of the earth, or the different locations of sun in relation to earth, when viewed from our "reference frame".
Time keeps everything from happening at once...which would kinda suck if you think about it...
Time can be thought of and measured. It has an effect. It can be proved to 'be' an element in which we exist. All proven by nothing more complicated the wrinkles on your face. The idea of a god can be thought of - but no effect due to such a thing can be seen, it can't be measured or even justified as anything more than a need for some kind of social 'father'.
It all depends on what you consider as effect. That which is no "effect" for you is all "effect" and measurable for the theist!
No it is not. The effect that the theists attribute to a god is everything, but the cause is not known, and considering the low probability of it being created by some super entity against the high probability of it being a natural occurance. Time is an observable phenomenon - god cannot be observed. This does not exclude the possiblity that a dreamed of deity could exist, it is just an very very small probability.
If a god is ever observed - then it could be considered. Attributing things to a god is as valuable an argument as blaming my cat.
You observe time or watch?
You observe change or time?
With out the memory to remember the past, how will you say time changed?
observe time, I can see myself do one thing after another and not at the same time. You are kite flying and making a pointless argument.
You observe or experience?
If you observe, how does this "time" look like?
Or You observe yourself doing things or you observe time?
At the minimum, can you tell what "time" is?
Time is a concept we use to denote change, not the other way round. It is the change we call time, and not time that cause change. In fact no concepts has ever interacted with any object, nor can it ever will.
I don't know if time can be "proved to be," since there is at least some physicists argue that perhaps it doesn't exist. If one solves relativity with quantum theory time vanishes. OR time maybe (and most models make it) a very real thing, saying time doesn't exist in these models is like saying space doesn't exist, which is absurd. Our GPS locators wouldn't work it time were merely a "concept," because they have to take into account the different rates of time flow. Basically, Einstein's brilliance is in recognizing time is a very real thing, and not a concept. However, we still do not know what time is. Here we are all arguing out of our depth. We've various models of the universe, that work pretty well, but no of them explain everything that can and cannot exist. In our classical understanding of existence God doesn't exist, since God too is a mere concept, yet, "God can not exist." It is a limited mind that thinks our conceptual abilities and our natural laws bind all possibilities outside all our frames of reference. Science is a powerful working model, but to extrapolate that since it is powerful everything and every possibility and even impossibility must be bound by its rules is a mistake, unless one can prove it, and no one can. Further, the model is constantly reinventing itself, so much so, that its past (religion the first models of reality) seem grossly absurd, and its future would seem nonsensical and even magical to those in the present. Astrology seems rational to those who know its rules, quantum theory seems rational to those who know its rules, but from an every day experience, neither seem rational (Einstein hated quantum theory). It very likely that some future theory will be even more crazy than quantum theory, and it will only be seen as rational because it works, if it didn't work, it would seem just as crazy as magic. And for that matter, if you accept the high likelihood that we're far from being as bright as we think we are, and that "super intelligences" will emerge from technology that peer farther into the depths of reality that we can literally imagine, then their abilities would seem exactly magical and God like to us, because we literally wouldn't be able to fathom them.
I kind of agree with most of this - except that the young quantum theory stuff is as full of holes as its universe.
Time 'is', I can see it working and measure it, but of course the time that I am in may be within 'another' time that I am not aware of and cannot measure, but time itself as the concept is proveable. And you supply the proof by answering after me - or not
 also time as a whole may not be the straight line we have in our minds, it may be circular or planar or whatever, but it is something.
by pisean2823116 years ago
well this question often comes to my mind that if god created everything , who created him?..some say he was always there but if he was always there than what is he?..is he is energy which manifested itself as...
by jomine5 years ago
1. God exists2. God does not exist3. Theist believe 14. Atheist believe 2[Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to betrue.]Everybody understand the first two. So I'll be...
by jomine6 years ago
To define means, to describe clearly, to convey a word's proper meaning.So I define "Exist" as having shape, a physical presence.Relativist say they never define, and hence can use words ambiguously and...
by RayLynch6 years ago
Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 1 tells us an intersting story about the being mankind has come to call God. It says, "In the beginning God..." I've meditated on theat phrase for a long time asking not who this...
by twingwiri7 years ago
As a fellow human being,i want to ask if we could exist without a belief of something o one greater than ourselves.I believe if there was no God we'd have to invent Him.
by jerami6 years ago
Before I begin; I want to say, I do believe in GOD and the Messiah. So I'm not disputing the existence of God. Though I do dispute many discriptions of him and where he is. I'm just asking a...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.