I am not aware of any contradiction in what I said.
What is tree?
I already provide an argument in favor of time.Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:29 amBut IF you can NOT point us to, and thus NOT SHOW what this supposed elementary thing IS, then there is NO prove that it actually exists at all.
What is a tree?
I just want to show that my argument follows.
No.
Watch and clock measure duration compared to a standard duration.Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:29 amWhat do you think a clock or a watch does when they measure distance between two points? Could it be 'duration' that they are measuring? If yes, then could duration just be the 'measured distance' between two points?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:15 pmNo, we have distance between two points and duration that it takes to go from one point to another.Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:37 am
The question does not appear, to me anyway, as though it is asking some thing fully.
To me, a 'duration' is the measured distance between two points. For example, the answer to the question; How long did it take to get from one named "point" to another named "point"? would be the 'duration'.
No, I am trying to take you to my claim.
Have you ever waited?Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:29 amOkay. So, how EXACTLY do 'you', "bahman", experience 'time'?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:15 pmI experience time.Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:37 am I think you might find this is a little bit different as electrons, quarks, et cetera can be observed or measured with tools, whereas, to me 'time' can not be observed nor measured with tools, as it is the actually measuring of things, taken from tools, clocks, watches, et cetera, which is what the word 'time' relates to and/or defines.
What does 'time', to you, actually look like when observed or measured?
I already provide my proof.
What is a tree?Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:29 amFor a supposed "scientist" you really are NOT very knowledgeable are you?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:15 pmWhat is a tree? Please don't tell me that you cannot explain anything.Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:37 am
Okay. But why do I 'NEED TO'?
If we have to go backwards to the very beginning of learning how to understand what it is that "another" person is saying, then, when an adult human being like yourself starts telling us, still learning and less knowing ones, that either 'time' exists or that 'God' exists, then us, who are still inquisitive and OPEN, tend to wonder; What is this 'thing' actually that these older human beings tell us exist but can NOT tell us what 'it' IS actually. So, what we, of the lesser knowledgeable do, is to ask 'you', of the older age, What is this 'thing' [either 'time' or 'God'] in which you speak of. This is like if you were to tell us about a 'tree' or a 'sailing' ship, and we had not yet had any experience at all of either. We would say some thing like; What is a 'tree'? Or, What is a sailing 'ship'? And then, if you actually KNEW what you were actually talking about, either through observations and/or experiences, then you would, hopefully, explain what you KNEW to us. But, if you did NOT because either you could NOT or just would NOT, then we become VERY DISINTERESTED in what you are saying, and usually just give up listening to you, which is what I USED TO DO.
I, however, now like to POINT OUT and SHOW the inconsistencies of what 'you', human beings, who say, or make out, that you actually KNOW some thing as well as ask you to CLARIFY what you actually ASSERT is the truth. I do this because then either I LEARN more and/or anew. I either LEARN that what I thought was right is actually wrong OR I LEARN that what I think is right might even be MORE right now.
Have you FORGOTTEN you make the CLAIM that 'time' is an ENTITY, which exists. You have even further CLAIMED that change could NOT occur without this entity that you call "time".
No. Because there is a contradiction in the act of creation, God needs time to create and time is part of creation.Age wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:29 amLOL
LOL
LOL
Does God even exist, to you?