The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ambivalent
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

TIME CONSTANCY = PROOF of GOD

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
ambivalent
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,003 times Debate No: 103470
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (1)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

Preamble:

Time continues moving forward
at a constant rate no matter what we do:

But why?

Formal Argument:

P1: Without God, there could be no concrete basis for time constancy.

(There is nothing in existence other than God that could ensure time constancy. The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could somehow ensure time constancy -- and then demonstrate that such a posited entity actually does ensure time constancy).

P2: Time is perfectly and uninterruptedly constant.

P3: Therefore there must necessarily be a concrete basis for time constancy.

Conclusion: Therefore God exists in reality.

QED

Bonus video for clarity: https://www.youtube.com...
ambivalent

Con

Ok. My understanding of your argument is that due to the remarkable phenomenon of time being completely constant there is an all powerful being controlling it (unless you specifically mean the Judeo-Christian Deity)

My objections:

1. We have a measurement of time that we deem constant but have no means to prove it is constant all the time (how will we know it is not constant if our basis of time measurement is out of our control):
The first question coming to mind is your assumption that time is constant. That will segway nicely into the question of how are we sure time is constant? The inevitable answer is that we have no clue. Here's why: our best clocks (most regular) are made by measuring the pulses of Cesium (an atom with a somewhat unstable nucleus that pulses regularly) That being said, we have no control over the small weak interactions taking place in those nuclei, so there is no way we can ensure that these nuclei are actually regular. If they were to be irregular, the pulses happen so quickly it would be impossible to tell, and if there were a significant aberration, we would tend to blame any differences on our own flawed mechanical work. In short, we lack the means to control our methods of timekeeping so we will be unable to identify any irregularities, and thus the entire concept of time being entirely regular already seems unprovable. If it is impossible to prove that time is constant, how can any assumptions of the sort be made? Hence, I have refuted your P2

2. There's no real evidence that a god is what makes time constant (I think your P1 needs more explaining)
Enough has been said here, but why would anyone draw the conclusion that some god is what makes time constant (IF it is constant) as opposed to some other phenomenon. (having a better definition of what a god is might help)

3. There is plenty of evidence from modern agreed upon science that would suggest that time needn't be constant.
One accurate way to measure time is using the speed of light (it is pretty much impossible to do so by the way, I can elaborate) Light is the defining measure of time when it travels through space. However, Einstein's theory of special relativity would suggest that from different points of view depending on your speed relative to the speed of light, time goes faster or slower. (EXAMPLE HERE: IF YOU ARE SKEPTICAL, READ THIS AND ASK ME TO ELABORATE, IF NO, GO TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH)For example, let's say that you have a device with two mirrors parallel to each other, and a laser bouncing light between them. You could measure the time it takes for the light to go between the mirrors (obviously there would be small nonconformities because of air molecules getting in the way and such, however it would seem to be fairly constant). Now let's say that you decide to attach some wheels to this apparatus and tether it to the back of the bullet train. A number of things would happen. During the time it takes, for the light departing the laser next to one mirror to get to the other mirror, the second mirror will have advanced some space ahead of where it would be when it was stationary, meaning that the light has to travel further to go from mirror to mirror. (I can include a schematic if you would like) meaning that (from someone moving at the same speed as the bullet train,)each measurement of time (the light traveling) is actually a bit longer, hence time running more slowly, an inconsistency. (you may think that this is cheating, but due to the fact that in YOUR perspective on the train, everything is moving backwards, and the laser beam is going perfectly perpendicular to the two mirrors-- the same exact distance as when you were stationary (again, from your perspective) -- hence the same measurements of distance. However from the perspective of an observer not on the train, the light still has to travel further than when stationary, so the light travels essentially the same distance in more time -- time slows down when you travel quickly.
That is all bona fide evidence of time being inconsistent that I can definitely elaborate on or give more examples if you wish. I have proven here that time is inconstant using commonly accepted scientific truth. Obviously if time is inconsistent there can be no such thing as a concrete basis for time constancy, or any god who can create such.

My main point here is that time is anything but constant, and there is no real way for us even during perfect circumstances to be sure it is.

Even so, there is nothing that suggests that a god would be able to ensure time is constant. To follow the next refutation that you recommended I would need a proper definition of what a god is, just a heads up.

In conclusion, your statement is false because time is inconstant and, even if time were constant, there is no evidence or comprehensive definition that would lead us to believe that a god is what would make time run constantly.
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"Ok. My understanding of your argument is that due to the remarkable phenomenon of time being completely constant there is an all powerful being controlling it (unless you specifically mean the Judeo-Christian Deity)"

I did not make that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"My objections:

1. We have a measurement of time that we deem constant but have no means to prove it is constant all the time "

That is the logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance" on your part.

"(how will we know it is not constant if our basis of time measurement is out of our control):"

We cannot possibly "know" that time "is not" constant -- because time IS constant, just as we cannot "know" that Texas "is not" a state -- because Texas IS a state.

"The first question coming to mind is your assumption"

I have made no assumptions, actually.

" that time is constant."

Time is definitely constant -- that is not an assumption. It is observed science.

"The inevitable answer is that we have no clue"

If you actually have no clue whether or not time is constant, then I have won this debate,

. "Here's why: our best clocks (most regular) are made by measuring the pulses of Cesium (an atom with a somewhat unstable nucleus that pulses regularly) "

That is a false and unsupported statement, and is not observable science.

"there is no way we can ensure that these nuclei are actually regular."

...and yet time is still constant.

"we lack the means to control our methods of timekeeping"

...and yet time is still constant.

" so we will be unable to identify any irregularities"

If you are actually unable to identify any irregularities in time constancy, then your argument commits the logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance," and any supposed "irregularities" to time constancy that you may posit are simply beliefs that you made up from your own fertile imagination, not any real thing that you have actually identified in reality, and therefore I won the debate.

," and thus the entire concept of time being entirely regular already seems unprovable"

No, it does not "seem" unprovable, and it is actually provable: Time always progresses forward, and always at the exact same rate, without any change. That rate is exactly 60 seconds per minute. That rate has never changed, and you have failed to demonstrate an example of that rate ever having changed. Therefore time is definitely and demonstrably constant.

". If it is impossible to prove that time is constant,"

It is not impossible -- I have already proven that time is constant.

" how can any assumptions of the sort be made?"

You have made many assumptions about time, all of them patently false.

" Hence, I have refuted your P2"

No you haven't.

"There's no real evidence that a god is what makes time constant"

I never claimed there was, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"(I think your P1 needs more explaining)"

It actually does not: Your inability to understand it by dint of your own low intelligence is your own problem, not mine.

"Enough has been said here, but why would anyone draw the conclusion that some god is what makes time constant"

That is not part of my argument, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" (IF it is constant)"

Time is constant.

" as opposed to some other phenomenon."

You have failed to provide evidence of any phenomenon other than God that could possibly keep time constant, so I won this debate.

" (having a better definition of what a god is might help)"

The term "a god" is your term, not mine, and that term appears nowhere in my OP, so if anyone needs to define that term, it would be you. This entire line of yours is nothing but a straw man logical fallacy, and you have yet to even address my actual argument.

3. "There is plenty of evidence from modern agreed upon science that would suggest that time needn't be constant."

No there isn't.

"One accurate way to measure time is using the speed of light (it is pretty much impossible to do so by the way,"

That statement is self-contradictory: Is it "accurate," or is it "impossible to do?" It can't be both.

If it is accurate, then it is not "impossible to do," and if it is impossible to do, then you could not possibly know whether it is "accurate" or not.

" time goes faster or slower."

That is a false and unsupported statement: You have failed to provide any concrete evidence of time ever having gone either faster or slower than exactly 60 seconds per minute. Therefore I won this debate.

"time slows down when you travel quickly."

No it doesn't: I once sped on my way to work, because I was running late, and my traveling quickly did not magickally change the rate of time -- it remained exactly 60 seconds per minute, which is the exact same rate at which it progresses when I travel slowly. Therefore that claim of yours is demonstrably false.

"That is all bona fide evidence of time being inconsistent"

No it isn't.

"I have proven here that time is inconstant"

No you haven't. At what time in history did time somehow progress either faster or slower than the constant rate of 60 seconds per minute? Actually, it never has, and you know it: Therefore I won this debate.

"Obviously if time is inconsistent there can be no such thing as a concrete basis for time constancy,"

...but time is constant.

" or any god who can create such."

I never made such a claim anyway, so that is a continuation of your straw man logical fallacy, and you have failed thus far to even address my actual argument. Therefore I won this debate.

"My main point here is that time is anything but constant,"

Your "main point" is patently and demonstrably false, as I have proven, so I won this debate.

" and there is no real way for us even during perfect circumstances to be sure it is."

If there is actually no way for you to be sure whether or not time is constant, then you commit the logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance," and any supposed "irregularities" to time constancy that you may posit are simply beliefs that you made up from your own fertile imagination, not any real thing that you have actually identified in reality, and therefore I won the debate.

"Even so, there is nothing that suggests that a god would be able to ensure time is constant"

I never stated there were in my actual argument, so that is your straw man logical fallacy.

"a proper definition of what a god is, just a heads up."

The term "a god" is your term, not mine, so you must define it, not me. Also, this entire line of yours is a straw man logical fallacy because my OP makes no claims at all involving the strange phrase "a god."

"your statement is false"

No it isn't.

" because time is inconstant and,"

No it isn't -- time always remains demonstrably constant at the rate of exactly 60 seconds per minute, and that rate never changes. You have failed to provide any concrete evidence of any supposed change to that rate, so time is most definitely constant, and I won this debate. Again, on what specific date in history are you claiming that time ever supposedly progressed at a rate different from 60 seconds per minute? That has never happened, actually, and you know that it has never happened. Therefore I won this debate.

"a god"

Again, that is your straw man, and has nothing to do with my actual argument. Actually, you have yet to even address my actual argument, so I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
ambivalent

Con

This debate is 4 rounds so I'll continue if you're ok with that. Unless you would rather win by a misconception on my part rather than have the debator with the most compelling argument be the victor

I apologize for the straw man that I accidentally created. I see now that you mean the fact that time is constant means that there is some basis for it being so, and god would be the only entity that provides such a basis.

First let us address the controversy of whether or not time is constant, and then we shall proceed to the second controversy of why God (I'll provide a definition that you are welcome to question: a conscious entity with superhuman abilities that is NOT a physical phenomenon, unless of course your are referring to a specific one, feel free to notify me)

With my first argument I proved that one cannot be sure that time is constant by using cesium clocks. (http://tycho.usno.navy.mil...) Your counterargument consisted of telling me that time cannot be inconstant because it is constant, and the fact that any inconstancies in time cannot be measured means that I could be making them up.

You are correct. However, I only provided you with one example of a situation where the constancy of time is called into question, and you are astute to point out my argument from ignorance there. However, we (humanity) have detected some tiny inconsistencies (using a huge detector called LIGO. It has found Gravitational Waves, which are minuscule disturbances of space AND time https://www.ligo.caltech.edu... ) If that isn't enough to make you believe time is inconstant, I don't know what will.

In addition, your 60 seconds in a minute argument is purely based upon the fact that they are both defined with the other in mind, and are purely subjective measurements of time vs. real time passing. In fact, more time could be passing in the time of one second than one second exactly, due to gravitational waves, or just speeding on the way to work, but there would still be 60 seconds in that minute, you would just experience them as slightly longer or shorter. "Time passes 60 seconds per minute" That is simply because they are defined as such and have no real scientific basis.

You seem to think you have refuted my time dilation argument by speeding on the way to work and watching your clock move the same as it normally does. However, the Lorentz factor dictates that time will actually be going 1/(1-(v^2/c^2)^1/2) times slower than usual. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... (in the case of speeding to work you are nowhere close to the speed of light (C) so your Lorentz factor would only add nanoseconds at the most to each minute you experience) The average analogue or digital clock will not detect this but there are plenty of experiments that have, such as the Ives-Stillwell experiment. http://www.gsjournal.net...
In addition, if you were speeding significantly close to the speed of light, you would still experience 60 seconds in a minute, but both values would take much longer to elapse.

To sum up: There is plenty of evidence here that proves time to be inconstant, while still maintaining the fact that 60 seconds are in a minute. No, these are not incompatible with each other, because a minute is defined as having 60 seconds it is impossible for anything other to be the case. However, more or less time may pass during that minute, for a variety of reasons.

Next, your P1: "Without God there would be no basis for time constancy" (This would be your actual argument if I am correct)
Why would this be the case? Even if time were constant, there is absolutely no evidence for that. That statement is just noting a natural phenomenon (Which of course is not actually present) and then concluding that there is no other valid explanation for it's behavior, but God. Perhaps god is the only known entity with sufficient power, but why need there be any entity to ensure this in the 1st place? The way I see it, after the universe began, it expanded outward in all 4 dimensions, (not constantly as we have hopefully established) including time, in order to come closer to a relatively low energy ground state for the universe due to the principles of maximum entropy. (The same principles are demonstrated in why galaxies are flat discs, and all of the planets in our solar system are distributed along a flat plane extending from the equator of the sun) https://math.dartmouth.edu...

In short, your declaration that time is constant is demonstrably false, and your assertion that nothing other than God (And I am assuming you mean the Judeo- Christian deity) can provide a concrete basis for time constancy is by no means explained to its full extent. Ideally you would elaborate more and we could continue, however if you would like to keep to your initial winnings (I will admit I should undeniably have lost there) say so, and I will forfeit.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"With my first argument I proved that one cannot be sure that time is constant by using cesium clocks. "

There is so much wrong with that statement:

1. No, you did not prove that, so you just lied.

2. My OP makes no claims about cesium clocks or any other type of clock, so you committed straw man logical fallacy.

3. If you are actually not sure whether time is constant or not, then you are unqualified to participate in this debate.

"Your counterargument consisted of telling me that time cannot be inconstant because it is constant"

I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"and the fact that any inconstancies in time cannot be measured means that I could be making them up."

I never made that statement either -- it seems that all you have are straw men, and are unable to even address my actual argument.

"You are correct."

Yes, I am, and you are incorrect -- therefore you lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)

" It has found Gravitational Waves, which are minuscule disturbances of space AND time"

That is a wild claim on your part with no evidence to back it up. Time is constant whether you believe it to be constant or not. Actually, you know that time is constant -- that is why you never expect a minute to last longer or shorter than a minute -- you are just a liar. You are lying because you are a believer in atheist Dogma and you are desperate to make up any lie that might help you to hold on to your silly atheistic belief system. Lies do not win debates, however, and that is one of your main problems here.

As I asked you before -- at what exact time in history are you claiming that a minute ever lasted either more than or less than 60 seconds? Actually, there was no such time, ever, in all history -- time is demonstrably and irrefutably constant, and has been since its beginning.

"In addition, your 60 seconds in a minute argument is purely based upon the fact that they are both defined with the other in mind"

No they aren't.

", and are purely subjective measurements of time vs. real time passing."

They are measurements, but they are not subjective -- they are objective measurements. Also, if you actually have no objective measurement of time at your disposal, then you cannot be objectively sure that your claim of time inconstancy is accurate, and you have lost this debate: Thanks your your time! =)

" In fact, more time could be passing in the time of one second than one second exactly"

No it couldn't. If you claim that that has ever happened, then I would like to know what method you used to measure that second during which you claim "more time" supposedly passed, and I would also like to know at exactly what date in history that event supposedly occurred. You cannot provide that information, because you are just lying, and time has actually always been constant since its beginning.

"or just speeding on the way to work,"

Speeding on the way to work does not, and cannot, magickally change the length of seconds. If you are actually claiming that that has ever happened, then I would like to know what method you used to measure that trip during which you claim "more time" supposedly passed, and I would also like to know at exactly what date in history that event supposedly occurred. You cannot provide that information, because you are just lying, and time has actually always been constant since its beginning.

" you would just experience them as slightly longer or shorter."

What you "experience" as longer or shorter sounds more like a subjective opinion, not observable science: We have all had that experience, like when you're waiting for something you want time "seems" longer, and when you're having fun, time "seems" shorter, but those are subjective opinions, not objective measurements of time, and they do not even apply to the statements in my OP.

""Time passes 60 seconds per minute" That is simply because they are defined as such and have no real scientific basis."

Are your personal measurements of time objective, or are they subjective? That seems to be the very crux of the time constancy portion of this debate: If you actually have no access to any definitions of time measurements with objective or scientific basis, then you cannot be sure whether or not your own claims of time inconstancy are accurate or not, and you therefore just lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)

" (in the case of speeding to work you are nowhere close to the speed of light (C) so your Lorentz factor would only add nanoseconds at the most to each minute you experience)"

No, it would not, and if you are claiming that it did at any time in history, then I would like to know what method you used to measure those supposed nanoseconds, and also at what exact date in history that event supposedly occurred (You cannot provide either, because you are just lying).

" The average analogue or digital clock will not detect this"

...because it doesn't ever happen.

"In addition, if you were speeding significantly close to the speed of light, you would still experience 60 seconds in a minute, but both values would take much longer to elapse."

The above statement, written by you, is evidence that time remains constant in all circumstances, not evidence that it could ever somehow become inconstant. Thanks for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)

"There is plenty of evidence here that proves time to be inconstant,"

You have provided exactly zero evidence for that claim. In fact, you have already admitted that you personally have no objective or scientific method for measuring time, which disqualifies you from knowing whether or not your own claims of time inconstancy are accurate or not. Therefore you lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)

" the fact that 60 seconds are in a minute."

That is an admission on your part that time indeed remains constant: Thanks for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)

"However, more or less time may pass during that minute, for a variety of reasons."

That is not true, and again, I would like to know on exactly what date in history you supposedly made such a measurement, as well as what method you used to make that measurement. You cannot provide either one, because that whole part of your story is nothing but a lie, and you know damn well that it is a lie. LOL SMH

"Next, your P1: "Without God there would be no basis for time constancy" (This would be your actual argument if I am correct)"

Thank you for actually quoting me this time, rather than committing straw man logical fallacy.

"Why would this be the case?"

Because there is nothing in existence other than God that could ensure time constancy. The only way to successfully refute this Premise would be to posit some entity other than God that could somehow ensure time constancy -- and then demonstrate that such a posited entity actually does ensure time constancy. You have failed to do so, so you lost this debate: Thanks fore your time! =)

"Even if time were constant, there is absolutely no evidence for that."

Yes there is -- the absolute lack of any measured and confirmed time inconstancy is ample evidence for time constancy. This principle is easy to understand. For example, if I drive in a constant straight line, the lack of deviance from that straight line is evidence for its constancy. If my lunch is constantly PB&J, every day for a month, then the lack of inconstancy in the lunch plan is itself evidence of its constancy. Cappice?

"That statement is just noting a natural phenomenon (Which of course is not actually present) and then concluding that there is no other valid explanation for it's behavior, but God."

I never made such a statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. You actually quoted me correctly ONLY ONCE in this entire debate -- the rest were straw man logical fallacies on your part. LOL SMH

"but why need there be any entity to ensure this in the 1st place?"

Because it is in fact ensured: People with health insurance policies rely on the health insurance companies to ensure their health insurance payoffs. It would be ignorant to ask "but why need there be any entity (the insurance company) to ensure this in the 1st place?" Such an ignorant fool may ignore the need for the insurance company, but then when he gets sick, he will receive no payoff because of his ignorance.

It is equally ignorant for you to ask that question in the case of time constancy: That which is actually ensured ALWAYS has some actual entity or another (whether that entity is personal or impersonal) to accomplish the act of ensurance -- without exception. In some cases it may well be some impersonal natural force, and in other cases it may be some physical object, a person, or it could be many other things, but in each and every case, there is, and must necessarily be, some entity or another that is responsible for such ensurance. To deny this fact would be to deny the usefulness of the scientific method itself -- for a large percentage of scientific experiments are designed to find out what entity ensures the outcome of a particular observed event. That is one of the main purposes of scientific method!

"In short, your declaration that time is constant is demonstrably false"

You have failed to demonstrate any actual deviation from time constancy at any time in history, so your above statement is a lie.

"other than God (And I am assuming you mean the Judeo- Christian deity)"

There is only one God, and he is neither Jewish nor Christian, actually.

You lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
ambivalent

Con

1st, the Cesium clocks. What I proved there was that during GENERAL passage of time (as in not under special circumstances either), even without traveling close to the speed of light, it is feasible that time does in fact fluctuate by tiny increments, as of yet undetectable. As you were quick to point out, we should not regard them as extant simply because they are possible. However, here I was just pointing out that there is no definitive way to prove that Time (not the intervals between our measurements of time) is constant either if we cannot measure it to precision.

(By the way, I am of the impression a straw man logical fallacy means that a debator has taken the opposition's argument and made it inferior for more ease in debating. However, this does not mean every time I paraphrase your arguments is a straw man logical fallacy.--
You said: "We cannot possibly "know" that time "is not" constant -- because time IS constant, just as we cannot "know" that Texas "is not" a state -- because Texas IS a state."
And I responded: "Your counterargument consisted of telling me that time cannot be inconstant because it is constant,"
that is a fairly reasonable summarization of your argument-- not a straw man logical fallacy)

Next.
To say LIGO's results are lies would be saying that those who produced those results are lying. As it turns out, LIGO is operated by MIT and Caltech, and $260 million dollars have been poured into the project. To me it seems pretentious to say that the operator from prestigious schools to whom the government has entrusted that large of a sum of money are in fact lying, and instead posit that time has continued constantly because there have always been 60 seconds in a minute. You are ignorant of the fact that more or less time than average can and does elapse during the intervals between the seconds. Our measurements of time are regular, but the time actually elapsing can go faster or slower.

You pretty obviously didn't like the word "experience" that I used earlier. I apologize if you interpreted this to mean your personal subjective opinion. Instead I was alluding to the fact that only from your perspective would time be slowing down.

"I would like to know on exactly what date in history you supposedly made such a measurement, as well as what method you used to make that measurement " Turns out, every day for Muons (small particles created by cosmic rays...) Also here i should add that the time differences that these muons experience due to time dilation is more than any imprecise clock can measure-- a matter of seconds as opposed to nanoseconds. http://ph.qmul.ac.uk...
This research has been completed by the Queen Mary University of London, so I would not argue with that if I were you.

Your argument that time doesn't slow down by the Lorentz factor ( is simply false. This has been the bedrock behind science that has enabled us to make geostationary satellites more precise in their measurements of time due to their high speeds. I have already cited that as well. I don't think Georgia State University would deliberately put wrong information online.

Next. If your only qualification for time being constant is 60 seconds being in a minute, I guess we agree. However, each second and minute being exactly the same as another one is ludicrous in the face of the scholarly evidence above (seriously click on the links be they in this round or the prior one, and read them)

Regardless, let us not continue to belabor this issue anymore, and let the voters decide which side really is correct. We can compromise by saying that time moves forward relatively uniformly

As for your real argument, there is little to say here other than that you never actually addressed my point concerning the maximum entropy principle.

I guess I should also rephrase my entity argument as well: there is nothing that would suffice to make me believe there is any sort of omnipotent being that can make time move forward at a relatively constant rate. In fact it seems to me like an instance of what you pointed out earlier as an argument from ignorance. I would be unlikely to believe that "God" whoever you may be referring to is able to do this unless I can understand the mechanism by which he/she does it. If you are going to give a faith based argument, ("We don't need proof, but faith") that does not contribute to the objective decision that will come about at the end of this debate, and hence is irrelevant.

For the present, please explain why the principle of maximum entropy doesn't work, given that the universe is 4 dimensional...
Debate Round No. 3
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"it is feasible that time does in fact fluctuate by tiny increments, as of yet undetectable."

If you actually have no way of detecting any such "increments," then you have no way of proving their existence, and you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)

"if we cannot measure it to precision."

I can measure time's precision. You claimed that you cannot, though, and if you actually cannot, then your claim of inconstancy is clearly a lie.

"You said: "We cannot possibly "know" that time "is not" constant -- because time IS constant, just as we cannot "know" that Texas "is not" a state -- because Texas IS a state.""

That is true.

"And I responded: "Your counterargument consisted of telling me that time cannot be inconstant because it is constant,""

I never made that statement, so it is indeed a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"...time has continued constantly because there have always been 60 seconds in a minute."

That is true.

"....more or less time than average can and does elapse during the intervals between the seconds."

At what exact year in history did that supposedly happen, and exactly how did you supposedly measure that? You can't answer those questions because you are just LYING.

"but the time actually elapsing can go faster or slower."

Again, at what exact year in history did that supposedly happen, and exactly how did you supposedly measure that? You can't answer those questions because you are just LYING.

"I would like to know on exactly what date in history you supposedly made such a measurement, as well as what method you used to make that measurement "

You still haven't answered those questions because you are just lying about all of that.

" We can compromise by saying that time moves forward relatively uniformly"

Actually, I have proven conclusively the fact that time is absolutely uniform, and you have failed to provide as much as a single concrete example that demonstrates otherwise, so I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)

"to make me believe"

This debate is not about your personal belief system -- it is about objective facts.

" there is any sort of omnipotent being that can make time move forward at a relatively constant rate."

I never claimed there was, so that is just another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" argument from ignorance."

I did not commit argument from ignorance, actually. You did: You admitted that you personally have no way to measure time, and then based on that personal ignorance of yours, you argued that time is supposedly inconstant. THAT is argument from ignorance. (If you actually have no way to personally measure time, then any and all arguments or conclusions that you may posit about time's constancy Vs inconstancy must necessarily be based on your own personal ignorance of time's actual measurements).

My stance, conversely, is that I can and do measure time as constant, and based on that objective knowledge, I conclude therefore that time is indeed constant -- THAT is an argument based on KNOWLEDGE, not on ignorance, ignorance on which your argument is clearly based.

Also, without God, argument from ignorance could not be objectively wrong.

" If you are going to give a faith based argument, ("We don't need proof, but faith") "

Your argument is faith-based, but mine has proof, actually. For example, you have faith that time is inconstant, but you provided exactly zero evidence for that faith-based religious belief of yours. In fact, time is perfectly constant, and you and I both know that it is perfectly constant. You failed to provide the exact date that you claim time was ever supposedly inconstant, and you also failed to provide how you supposedly observed such supposed inconstancy BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST LYING ABOUT THAT. You are a bald-faced liar, you are a complete and utter moron, and you are incapable of engaging in actual debate.

"why the principle of maximum entropy doesn't work"

I never claimed it didn't, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

I won this debate, and I won it thoroughly and handily: Thanks for your time! =)
ambivalent

Con

Summing up this debate, my objections were to your declarations that time is in fact constant, and that there would be no concrete basis for time constancy other than God.

1. Time is not constant:

a. What I said (pockmarked by a few amateur errors in delivery:
Time is not constant because in general our precise timing capacities are limited, so we are in fact unable to detect possible fluctuations. My point here was for time in general-- but no that alone does not prove time is inconstant.

Had I left it there, Pro's argument that I could not be sure that time was inconstant would hold and I would in fact lose.

b. Time in certain scenarios does in fact move more quickly or slowly than usual: time dilation, muons not decaying before earth contact, gravitational waves (and objects with large amounts of gravity in general, but I never mentioned that).

Purushadasa seems to think that I am incapable of proving this because I argued earlier that we are not precise enough to measure general time inconstancies. Where he went wrong is that I never specified that this was true for ALL time inconstancies. That seems like a straw man right there.
Pro then decides to lambast me for not providing a day in history where this applies. What he does not consider is that concerning my evidence, these are daily phenomena-- the methods are found in the evidence. Hence there is a day in history: today for instance that time did run a little bit slowly for some muons. Detected by methods in the last link below.
What evidence?? oh maybe this evidence:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil...
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
http://www.gsjournal.net...
http://ph.qmul.ac.uk...

Other than rebuttals, Pro's counterargument consisted of saying that 60 seconds were always in a minute

My rebuttal to that statement said that 60 seconds were human methods to measure time, by definition constant due to their relationship to each other being part of their definition (Pro did object, but provided no evidence) and did a fairly good job at showing a constant passage of time, however are by no means reflective of relativistic phenomena going on during them, so they will stretch and shrink in real length (by minuscule BUT MEASURABLE amounts--- given the right circumstances)

Pro's rebuttal to my rebuttal consisted of very little other than outright denial based on very imprecise measurements.

2. There could be a concrete basis for time constancy other than God.

I made this claim because I saw no evidence in the first place other than that questionable at best youtube video that a god might possibly provide a basis for time constancy.
Just Why?
Pro ignored this and chose to attack my bad wording....
In addition he did not supply any description of "God" so I was really at a loss here. A more productive choice would be to recognize there is no possible way I would be familiar with what religion you attach to, and what "God" is to you, and not inconvenience us both debating trivialities such as "a god" vs "God"

However, I went along with it and provided some other source of "time constancy" (I'm sorry "provider of a concrete basis for "time constancy") being the maximum entropy principle.

Pro, although considering this the "actual argument" ignored that as well, in the midst of attacking various instances of my summarizations of his logic as straw men.
So that really didn't work at all, and no conclusion was reached. However, before we finish I will demonstrate how the maximum entropy principle (a law present in almost all areas of physics)
http://www-mtl.mit.edu... thats a brief intro to it in math.

Regardless, it says that statistically, things organize into positions where they take up the least energy to retain equilibrium. (It makes sense when you look at it mathematically)
The universe is just another one of those things. Ever since the beginning of the universe, it has been expanding in all spatial dimensions, so as to decrease energy density, directly complying with the principle of maximum entropy. Now, it sounds strange, but moving forward (not constantly at times) in time is the only logical way to make the universe continue expanding, and obeying that principle. In addition, with time running relatively uniformly forward, from the perspectives of our own galaxy, other galaxies are so distant that we only see them as they were millions or billions of years ago (hence, they occupy different spots in time from our perspective) that means that these galaxies are actually spanned out along the time dimension in order of how far away from us they are. Hence, in the universe, we in this galaxy all have unique coordinates in the universe- both spacial and temporal(from other galaxies of course). This complies with the prior stated principle: it would not be a state of equilibrium in the universe if we were all stacked together on the time dimension, but it is equilibrium because we are spread out.
-- this is a matter of pure theory, however It does work equally as well as having "God" manipulating the universe, if not better, because it has grounding in reality, whereas God has no such grounding.

If you are a voter and have made it this far I applaud you. Finally consider how my arguments, evidence and rebuttals stack up to those of my opponent fairly.

That is all. I am done here. Thank you Purushadasa for debating, I hope this round doesn't enrage you as much as the last one.
Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Thank you all for so many kind and intelligent posts.

My engagement on this site was intended, from the beginning, to be a nothing more than a temporary experiment.

I didn't know specifically when it was going to end, until this evening: My girlfriend, Bhaktin Caroline, said something to me that inspired me to make tonight the end of the experiment.

Bhaktin Caroline matters much, much more than this website.

If you are still feeling overly attached after I leave, I apologize, but I will still be leaving nonetheless: I won't be engaging in any further debates, arguments, or conversations on this site, and nor will I be reading any further posts uploaded by its kind and intelligent members -- starting now.

You can argue amongst yourselves, from now on.

Good-bye! =)
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
My opponent wrote:

"if not better, because it has grounding in reality

No it doesn't. All of the nonsense that you posited as the basis for time constancy was utter rubbish that was made up and does not exist in reality, therefore you lost this debate.

Also, without God, nothing at all could have any objective grounding.

You lost this debate, and you lost it hard: Thanks for your time! =)
Posted by ambivalent 11 months ago
ambivalent
@purushadasa
Sorry to offend you, but
a.) You are putting my argument out of order
b.) you have not once responded to my response to your "actual argument"
c.) did you click the muons link?
d.) I am not accustomed to conversing with 4 legged frog/humans in the comments (much less with Trump hair) (That's a satirical joke not ad hominen)

I honestly did appreciate debating you though, this was my first time in fact. Ideally we can go again at some point without it getting heated. Thanks for your time =)
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
My opponent wrote:

"Detected by methods in the last link below."

Links are not valid methods by which you could possibly have personally observed any supposed fluctuations in time's rate, so you are clearly just lying about that.

" Pro's counterargument consisted of saying that 60 seconds were always in a minute"

That is a lie and a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"by definition constant due to their relationship to each other being part of their definition"

That is not why they are constant, no.

I provided evidence for all of my statements in this debate, but you provided no evidence at all for any of yours. Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)

"so they will stretch and shrink in real length"

No they won't. Also, at what exact time today did you supposedly observe such a thing happening, and by what exact method did you supposedly observe that? You can't answer these questions because you are just lying.

" There could be a concrete basis for time constancy other than God."

No there couldn't, and you failed to provide evidence of one, so you lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)

"I was really at a loss here."

You were at a loss throughout this entire debate because you are a liar and your entire argument is based on nothing but lies that you made up.

"with what religion"

I don't have a religion.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
My opponent wrote:

"Time is not constant because in general our precise timing capacities are limited,"

If your precise timing capacities are actually limited, then you cannot measure time accurately, and your assertion that time is inconstant commits the logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance."

"so we are in fact unable to detect possible fluctuations"

If that is the case, then your statements about fluctuations are lies, not based on actual measurement or observation, and you lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)

b. "Time in certain scenarios does in fact move more quickly or slowly than usual:'

No it doesn't. During what exact year in history are you claiming that happened, and what exact method did you supposedly use to observe that? You can't answer those questions because you are just LYING.

"I argued earlier that we are not precise enough to measure general time inconstancies."

If you actually don't have a method of measurement by which you can measure time inconstancies, then your assertion of time inconstancies must be just lies that you made up, not actual things that you have measured.

"these are daily phenomena"

No they aren't. If they are, then tell me at what exact time today did time supposedly progress either faster or slower than usual, and what exact method did you use to observe that? You can't answer either question, because again -- YOU ARE JUST LYING ABOUT THAT.

"today for instance that time did run a little bit slowly for some muons"

At what exact time today did that supposedly happen? By what exact method did you personally observe that happening today? You can't answer either of those questions because YOU ARE JUST LYING.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Time definitely progresses at a constant rate, always: The rate is exactly 60 seconds per minute, and that rate NEVER changes.

Therefore time is most definitely constant.

Have you ever observed a minute to last 61 seconds or more, or observed a minute to last only 59 seconds or less? No, of course not: You are just lying.

Believers in atheist Dogma are natural-born liars, so your above lie is no surprise. LOLOLOLOLOL SMH! =)
Posted by TheBenC 11 months ago
TheBenC
Time does not move at a constant rate. The premise for this debate is completely flawed.
Posted by TheBenC 11 months ago
TheBenC
Time does not move at a constant rate. The premise for this debate is completely flawed.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
"you imply that you worship god by saying you are a human, and humans worship god"

I didn't merely imply it -- I stated it directly, and it is true: Humans worship God; animals do not.

"we are a species of animal like an ape or monkey"

You are, yes, but I am not: I am human.

Again: Humans worship God; animals do not.
Posted by cakerman 11 months ago
cakerman
"just because you worship a god"

I never claimed that I did, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

you imply that you worship god by saying you are a human, and humans worship god

If you'd stop taking me out of context I didn't say that homo sapiens are apes and monkeys, I just said that we are a species of animal like an ape or monkey
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 11 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaambivalentTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07