Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 67

Thread: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Quote virphen said View Post
    What exactly do you mean by ""the popular concept of time"?
    Popular means what a lot of people think (of course) and that is why they buy clocks and watches and calendars, history books and tv guides and diaries because they believe in the passage/passing of time.

    So I am in that sense normal, I believe in the popular concept of time.

    Time has also been described poetically and used in science texts to explain sequential events.

    I am influenced by all of the above and I called it "the popular concept of time".

    Someone else may choose to have a different concept of the passageof time and that may work too.

    The popular concept of time is not recorded by our 5 senses, and we cannot capture it nor speed it up nor slow it down and except for fiction (time machines) we cannot manipulate time in any way. We cannot intensify time nor weaken time.

    All we can do is have a concept of time and try to simulate time we cannot use any of our 5 senses to actually examine time.

    Time for me is therefore a concept, for want of a better word.
    God was a giant Queensland Blue Pumpkin. He was lonely and got bored so he blew himself up (aka the big bang) The pumpkin skin fragments became planets, the orange flesh vaporised into gasses and the seed fragments started life when conditions were right.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes
    Posts
    1,609

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    All that space, just to fail to answer the question...


  3. Like button Goldenmane liked this post
  4. #23
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Quote hackenslash said View Post
    This. Also, what do you mean by 'forever'?
    Nothing special just what the dictionaries define "forever" as.

    Why do you ask?

    "Forever" is a well used word in our language, it is not obscure in any way.
    God was a giant Queensland Blue Pumpkin. He was lonely and got bored so he blew himself up (aka the big bang) The pumpkin skin fragments became planets, the orange flesh vaporised into gasses and the seed fragments started life when conditions were right.

  5. #24
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Quote hackenslash said View Post
    All that space, just to fail to answer the question...
    You know as well as I do what the "popular concept of time" is.
    God was a giant Queensland Blue Pumpkin. He was lonely and got bored so he blew himself up (aka the big bang) The pumpkin skin fragments became planets, the orange flesh vaporised into gasses and the seed fragments started life when conditions were right.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    325

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Quote Madame Tarot said View Post
    Quote hackenslash said View Post
    All that space, just to fail to answer the question...
    You know as well as I do what the "popular concept of time" is.
    I know this is directed at hackenslash, but for my part I have no clue what the popular concept of time actually is... it's somewhere ranging from vague approximation of reality to absolute illusion. Nothing in my intuitive experience can handle any number of facts or ideas like the dilation of time due to velocity or gravity, how two events that to me occur simultaneously would occur at different times to another observer moving at a different speed... how time can actually disappear from equations that seek to reconcile quantum physics and relativity, how it can't be unbound from space itself thus we have a concept of spacetime... Any concept of time that is at all useful beyond the trite would have to account for these things, and yours or my or anyone else's mere intuition on what time is doesn't cut the mustard.

  7. Like button Strato liked this post
  8. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    7,609

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Quote Madame Tarot said View Post
    Quote hackenslash said View Post
    All that space, just to fail to answer the question...
    You know as well as I do what the "popular concept of time" is.
    Until you properly define it, it isn't at all clear that you know at all what it means.

    Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk
    -Geoff Rogers

    @Goldenmane3


  9. #27
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    [QUOTE=Goldenmane;587461]Until you properly define it, it isn't at all clear that you know at all what it means.

    Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk[/QUOTE

    Seeing as you are in doubt and confused about the popular concept of time this is what Wikipedia says.

    Time
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    For other uses of "Time", see Time (disambiguation).
    Time

    Current time (update)
    23:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    Major concepts
    [show]
    Fields of study
    [show]
    Philosophy
    [show]
    ReligionMythology
    [show]
    MeasurementStandards
    [show]
    ScienceNaturalism
    [show]
    Related topics
    [show]
    vte
    Classical mechanics
    F → = m a → {\displaystyle {\vec {F}}=m{\vec {a}}}

    Second law of motion
    HistoryTimeline
    Branches
    [show]
    Fundamentals
    [show]
    Formulations
    [show]
    Core topics
    [show]
    Rotation
    [show]
    Scientists
    [show]
    vte


    The flow of sand in an hourglass can be used to measure the passage of time. It also concretely represents the present as being between the past and the future.
    Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.[1][2][3] Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience.[4][5][6][7] Time is often referred to as the fourth dimension, along with the three spatial dimensions.[8]
    Time has long been an important subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.[2][6][7][9][10][11] Nevertheless, diverse fields such as business, industry, sports, the sciences, and the performing arts all incorporate some notion of time into their respective measuring systems.[12][13][14] Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe—a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[15][16] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[17] and Immanuel Kant,[18][19] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.
    Time in physics is unambiguously operationally defined as "what a clock reads".[6][17][20] Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in both the International System of Units and International System of Quantities. Time is used to define other quantities—such as velocity—so defining time in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition.[21] An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured. Investigations of a single continuum called spacetime bring questions about space into questions about time, questions that have their roots in the works of early students of natural philosophy.
    Furthermore, it may be that there is a subjective component to time, but whether or not time itself is "felt", as a sensation, or is a judgment, is a matter of debate.[2][6][7][22][23]
    Temporal measurement has occupied scientists and technologists, and was a prime motivation in navigation and astronomy. Periodic events and periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples include the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, the swing of a pendulum, and the beat of a heart. Currently, the international unit of time, the second, is defined by measuring the electronic transition frequency of caesium atoms (see below). Time is also of significant social importance, having economic value ("time is money") as well as personal value, due to an awareness of the limited time in each day and in human life spans.
    God was a giant Queensland Blue Pumpkin. He was lonely and got bored so he blew himself up (aka the big bang) The pumpkin skin fragments became planets, the orange flesh vaporised into gasses and the seed fragments started life when conditions were right.

  10. #28
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Thanks Goldie.

    I have no argument with what Wiki says about time, and the popular concept of time.

    If you choose to be unable to understand "the popular concept of time" it is not my concern, worry or care.

    In other words, I don't give a shit.
    God was a giant Queensland Blue Pumpkin. He was lonely and got bored so he blew himself up (aka the big bang) The pumpkin skin fragments became planets, the orange flesh vaporised into gasses and the seed fragments started life when conditions were right.

  11. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    7,609

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Quote Madame Tarot said View Post
    Thanks Goldie.

    I have no argument with what Wiki says about time, and the popular concept of time.

    If you choose to be unable to understand "the popular concept of time" it is not my concern, worry or care.

    In other words, I don't give a shit.
    The wiki doesn't put "the popular concept of time" on anything like a rigorous footing, and indeed it explicitly references the fact that there is no significant consensus regarding it.

    Mind you, relying upon popular concepts as a basis for understanding questions like "Did the universe begin?" is problematic at the best of times. May as well be religious, since the most popular concept of "self" involves some version or other of a soul, despite that all the actual evidence points toward that notion being entirely illusory.

    Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk
    -Geoff Rogers

    @Goldenmane3


  12. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,788

    Default Re: Does the evidence support no God or no Caring God

    Quote Madame Tarot said View Post
    Quote virphen said View Post
    What exactly do you mean by ""the popular concept of time"?
    Popular means what a lot of people think (of course) and that is why they buy clocks and watches and calendars, history books and tv guides and diaries because they believe in the passage/passing of time.

    So I am in that sense normal, I believe in the popular concept of time.

    Time has also been described poetically and used in science texts to explain sequential events.

    I am influenced by all of the above and I called it "the popular concept of time".

    Someone else may choose to have a different concept of the passageof time and that may work too.

    The popular concept of time is not recorded by our 5 senses, and we cannot capture it nor speed it up nor slow it down and except for fiction (time machines) we cannot manipulate time in any way. We cannot intensify time nor weaken time.

    All we can do is have a concept of time and try to simulate time we cannot use any of our 5 senses to actually examine time.

    Time for me is therefore a concept, for want of a better word.
    Isn't time relative? If i put food in the freezer doesn't that change the time it goes off?
    "I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins

  13. Laugh button Strato laughed at this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •