Philosophy Now Forum

SecularCauses wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Science doesn't prove time! Prove it!

LOL. You really do need to join up with the Christian fundies. You can proclaim Kant and his idiocy as a prophet of god, like jebus and company. You can tell each other your imaginary friend jebus is real, but time is not. Won't that be fun?

I'm not a christian. I'm, so it would seem, an Agnostic. I've always leaned toward Science, which is why I know it's 'impossible' for you to 'prove' that time 'exists,' you're the one that's like those that would have someone believe in something invisible, that's unknowable. I wonder, did my bit about the clock remain over your head, after my elaboration, it's really quite simple. Prove time exists, my friend, I'd imagine you'll do it in much the same way as you do your god!

SecularCauses wrote: You can't even see the contradiction in your own position. If you accept matter as real because it obeys physical las, but then reject the concept of time, although it too is subject to physical laws, it is you who has the explaining to do, not me.

As it happens my belief in matter is not based on anything so sophisticated; I believe in it because I can see it. If I look for time I cannot see it directly, I only see matter behaving in predictable ways. I don't, therefore, see the contradiction.

SecularCauses wrote: My position is based on scientific evidence, while yours is based on what? Fanciful ignorance.

Actually my position is based on exactly the same evidence. We both agree, I think, that all physical processes happen at different rates subject to velocity and gravity. Your claim, as I understand it, is that there is a substance called space-time that is warped by the above. Matter travelling through this material follows the convoluted path and to observers at a distance it appears that the same physical process in their inertial frame will complete before they do in the inertial frame being observed. Since the concept of time is so familiar the language they might use will be along the lines of 'time is slower in that inertial frame than ours'. Feel free to correct me if this is not your understanding.
From the same evidence I conclude that matter is affected directly by velocity and gravity, I have explained how I think velocity affects matter in a thread called Two atoms. I see no need to postulate a substance I cannot see and do not need.[/quote]

I thought I'd re-submit this as I think the points have been lost in the subsequent slanging match between SecularCauses and SpheresOfBalance.

SecularCauses wrote:LOL. You really do need to join up with the Christian fundies. You can proclaim Kant and his idiocy as a prophet of god, like jebus and company. You can tell each other your imaginary friend jebus is real, but time is not. Won't that be fun?

SpheresOfBalance makes a good point; it is SecularCauses that demands the existance of an immortal, omnipresent entity.

tillingborn wrote:

SecularCauses wrote: You can't even see the contradiction in your own position. If you accept matter as real because it obeys physical las, but then reject the concept of time, although it too is subject to physical laws, it is you who has the explaining to do, not me.

As it happens my belief in matter is not based on anything so sophisticated; I believe in it because I can see it. If I look for time I cannot see it directly, I only see matter behaving in predictable ways. I don't, therefore, see the contradiction.

SecularCauses wrote: My position is based on scientific evidence, while yours is based on what? Fanciful ignorance.

Actually my position is based on exactly the same evidence. We both agree, I think, that all physical processes happen at different rates subject to velocity and gravity. Your claim, as I understand it, is that there is a substance called space-time that is warped by the above. Matter travelling through this material follows the convoluted path and to observers at a distance it appears that the same physical process in their inertial frame will complete before they do in the inertial frame being observed. Since the concept of time is so familiar the language they might use will be along the lines of 'time is slower in that inertial frame than ours'. Feel free to correct me if this is not your understanding.
From the same evidence I conclude that matter is affected directly by velocity and gravity, I have explained how I think velocity affects matter in a thread called Two atoms. I see no need to postulate a substance I cannot see and do not need.

I thought I'd re-submit this as I think the points have been lost in the subsequent slanging match between SecularCauses and SpheresOfBalance.

SecularCauses wrote:LOL. You really do need to join up with the Christian fundies. You can proclaim Kant and his idiocy as a prophet of god, like jebus and company. You can tell each other your imaginary friend jebus is real, but time is not. Won't that be fun?

SpheresOfBalance makes a good point; it is SecularCauses that demands the existance of an immortal, omnipresent entity.[/quote]

Bullshit, asswipe, I am an atheist, so I'm not the one who requires an imaginary friend of any kind. Philosophy is Bullshit. Another user here posted a topic about how philosophers who argue that there is no such thing as morality suddenly pull their ignornt thumbs out of their asses when it come to child rape. I have yet to see any intelligent thought come out of any philosopher's head. It's a subject that attracts the same idiots who become bible-thumping morons who refuse to believe in science, because some "prophet/philosopher" said so. I always knew philosophers were idiots, I just didn;t realize how truly stupid they were until coming here.

SecularCauses wrote: Bullshit, asswipe, I am an atheist, so I'm not the one who requires an imaginary friend of any kind. Philosophy is Bullshit. Another user here posted a topic about how philosophers who argue that there is no such thing as morality suddenly pull their ignornt thumbs out of their asses when it come to child rape. I have yet to see any intelligent thought come out of any philosopher's head. It's a subject that attracts the same idiots who become bible-thumping morons who refuse to believe in science, because some "prophet/philosopher" said so. I always knew philosophers were idiots, I just didn;t realize how truly stupid they were until coming here.

Ahh, now we're getting somewhere, it has resorted to vulgar name calling that will clearly demonstrate the intellictual sophistication of your position. That strong gravity fields and relativistic speeds effect matter and its motion through space has been demonstrated. Clocks are affected by the laws of physics and these affect material objects which clocks are composed of. Time is just the recording of events, whether it be the movment of a clock, planet or other things, time affects no thing, the laws of physics affect things.

SecularClauses, Just curious, are you a Satyr Sock, or just one of his lackeys?

tillingborn wrote:SpheresOfBalance makes a good point; it is SecularCauses that demands the existance of an immortal, omnipresent entity.

SeculaCauses wrote:Bullshit, asswipe, I am an atheist, so I'm not the one who requires an imaginary friend of any kind. Philosophy is Bullshit. Another user here posted a topic about how philosophers who argue that there is no such thing as morality suddenly pull their ignornt thumbs out of their asses when it come to child rape. I have yet to see any intelligent thought come out of any philosopher's head. It's a subject that attracts the same idiots who become bible-thumping morons who refuse to believe in science, because some "prophet/philosopher" said so. I always knew philosophers were idiots, I just didn;t realize how truly stupid they were until coming here.

I think your scientific method suffers from confirmation bias. You have ignored all the points I have made and the fact that I haven't made any reference to philosophers. How different from a bible-thumping moron is someone who ignores challenges and repeats 'time is real' without offering any evidence?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

SecularCauses wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Science doesn't prove time! Prove it!

LOL. You really do need to join up with the Christian fundies. You can proclaim Kant and his idiocy as a prophet of god, like jebus and company. You can tell each other your imaginary friend jebus is real, but time is not. Won't that be fun?

I'm not a christian. I'm, so it would seem, an Agnostic. I've always leaned toward Science, which is why I know it's 'impossible' for you to 'prove' that time 'exists,' you're the one that's like those that would have someone believe in something invisible, that's unknowable. I wonder, did my bit about the clock remain over your head, after my elaboration, it's really quite simple. Prove time exists, my friend, I'd imagine you'll do it in much the same way as you do your god!

No, idiot, I am not asking anyone to believe in a figment of the imagination. People like you who believe time does not exist are asking people to do just that. For me, I'm going with the evidence, and the evidence demonstrates that time is embedded in the fabric of space itself. It is not something separate from it. You have yet to state anything here indicating that you follow science. Maybe you are confused? Christian science is not real science.

thedoc wrote:

SecularCauses wrote: Bullshit, asswipe, I am an atheist, so I'm not the one who requires an imaginary friend of any kind. Philosophy is Bullshit. Another user here posted a topic about how philosophers who argue that there is no such thing as morality suddenly pull their ignornt thumbs out of their asses when it come to child rape. I have yet to see any intelligent thought come out of any philosopher's head. It's a subject that attracts the same idiots who become bible-thumping morons who refuse to believe in science, because some "prophet/philosopher" said so. I always knew philosophers were idiots, I just didn;t realize how truly stupid they were until coming here.

Ahh, now we're getting somewhere, it has resorted to vulgar name calling that will clearly demonstrate the intellictual sophistication of your position. That strong gravity fields and relativistic speeds effect matter and its motion through space has been demonstrated. Clocks are affected by the laws of physics and these affect material objects which clocks are composed of. Time is just the recording of events, whether it be the movment of a clock, planet or other things, time affects no thing, the laws of physics affect things.

What's wrong with name calling? If I call you a fucking **** licker, does that make your opinions valid? How could that be? All it would prove is that I called you a **** licker.

Your opinion is actually so juvenile as to not even require a response. You are using second-grade level arguments, which just shows you are no just a ****-licker, but a fucking stupid ****-licker.

thedoc wrote:SecularClauses, Just curious, are you a Satyr Sock, or just one of his lackeys?

I am SecularCauses, that's all I have ever been here. First, people call me froggy, then Forged in Hell, and now Satyr Sock. I don't even know these users, nor care to. It appears that many of the users here suffer from rampant paranoia. Looking for hidden users under every comment is not healthy.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Science doesn't prove time! Prove it!

SecularCauses wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

SecularCauses wrote:LOL. You really do need to join up with the Christian fundies. You can proclaim Kant and his idiocy as a prophet of god, like jebus and company. You can tell each other your imaginary friend jebus is real, but time is not. Won't that be fun?

I'm not a christian. I'm, so it would seem, an Agnostic. I've always leaned toward Science, which is why I know it's 'impossible' for you to 'prove' that time 'exists,' you're the one that's like those that would have someone believe in something invisible, that's unknowable. I wonder, did my bit about the clock remain over your head, after my elaboration, it's really quite simple. Prove time exists, my friend, I'd imagine you'll do it in much the same way as you do your god!

No, idiot, I am not asking anyone to believe in a figment of the imagination. People like you who believe time does not exist are asking people to do just that. For me, I'm going with the evidence, and the evidence demonstrates that time is embedded in the fabric of space itself. It is not something separate from it. You have yet to state anything here indicating that you follow science. Maybe you are confused? Christian science is not real science.

You say that you have evidence, but as yet have not presented it. What is this evidence of which you speak?

tillingborn wrote:I think your scientific method suffers from confirmation bias. You have ignored all the points I have made and the fact that I haven't made any reference to philosophers. How different from a bible-thumping moron is someone who ignores challenges and repeats 'time is real' without offering any evidence?

You've done it again.

SecularCauses wrote:No, idiot, I am not asking anyone to believe in a figment of the imagination.

As I said before:
Actually my position is based on exactly the same evidence. We both agree, I think, that all physical processes happen at different rates subject to velocity and gravity. Your claim, as I understand it, is that there is a substance called space-time that is warped by the above (mass and velocity). Matter travelling through this material follows the convoluted path and to observers at a distance it appears that the same physical process in their inertial frame will complete before they do in the inertial frame being observed. Since the concept of time is so familiar the language they might use will be along the lines of 'time is slower in that inertial frame than ours'. Feel free to correct me if this is not your understanding.
From the same evidence I conclude that matter is affected directly by velocity and gravity, I have explained how I think velocity affects matter in a thread called Two atoms. I see no need to postulate a substance I cannot see and do not need.

SecularCauses wrote:People like you who believe time does not exist are asking people to do just that. For me, I'm going with the evidence, and the evidence demonstrates that time is embedded in the fabric of space itself. It is not something separate from it.

The evidence demonstrates that clocks slow down in gravitational fields and at velocity. It is mathematically convenient to describe this with reference to 4 dimensional spacetime. The physical evidence does not support the hypothesis that there is a malleable 'fabric'.
To be blunt the evidence is: Clocks slow down in gravitational fields. The conclusion I, and I think SpheresOfBalance and thedoc draw from that is that clocks slow down in gravitational fields. You, however, conjure some spacetime blanket.
The fact that something works mathematically does not prove it exists. To locate something in space takes three coordinates, generally left/right, back/forward, up/down; it does not follow that those 'dimensions' exist and in fact there are alternative coordinate systems using angles. Similarly with 'time' in order to locate an event it is convenient to do so by reference to physical events, the orbit of Earth for years, the Earths rotation for days, the vibration of atoms for seconds. Putting space and time together gives you the means to locate any event, it does not follow that spacetime therefore is a real substance.

SecularCauses wrote:You have yet to state anything here indicating that you follow science.

Very well: I follow science.

SecularCauses wrote:Maybe you are confused?

Anyone who follows science and isn't confused isn't paying attention.

SecularCauses wrote: Christian science is not real science.

I don't know what you mean by Christian science and I have no idea what it has to do with this thread.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
You say that you have evidence, but as yet have not presented it. What is this evidence of which you speak?

I did present it. It's not my fault that you are ignorant of science, and believe that if you put your fingertips in your ears, while closing your eyes, and jumping from foot to foot while yelling "Science isn't real!" that you are not addressing the evidence of science, but merely showing the world what a moron you are. The proof that time is real, and exists as part of reality is that it can be curved, along with space. Only something objectively real can be influenced in such a manner. It's that simple. Trying to claim that it has something to do with the construction of clocks, and not time itself, is such a foolish argument that it does not require any refutation. It's time itselfthat is altered, which would occur without the exstence of any clocks.

SecularCauses wrote:The proof that time is real, and exists as part of reality is that it can be curved, along with space. Only something objectively real can be influenced in such a manner. It's that simple.

This is a circular argument and therefore useless.

SecularCauses wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
You say that you have evidence, but as yet have not presented it. What is this evidence of which you speak?

I did present it. It's not my fault that you are ignorant of science, and believe that if you put your fingertips in your ears, while closing your eyes, and jumping from foot to foot while yelling "Science isn't real!" that you are not addressing the evidence of science, but merely showing the world what a moron you are. The proof that time is real, and exists as part of reality is that it can be curved, along with space. Only something objectively real can be influenced in such a manner. It's that simple. Trying to claim that it has something to do with the construction of clocks, and not time itself, is such a foolish argument that it does not require any refutation. It's time itselfthat is altered, which would occur without the exstence of any clocks.

All the above is not proof. It is you that 'believes' it to be true "BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID SO." So I have some land I want to sell you, real cheap...

Where is "your" proof?

SecularCauses wrote: <snip>

It's time itselfthat is altered, which would occur without the exstence of any clocks.

Prove it. Name your proof that time is altered.