...Concepts my friend. Concepts. How do you explain something to the willingly ignorant? Does it constitute a change to create? Did the universe ALWAYS exist?
Except for the fact that he is entirely correct in saying that. The universe has the potential to expand forever, it has no end. The 'end of the universe' that you are thinking of is simply the farthest distance that matter has managed to reach.
When that guy said that he meant in both directions as in past and future, I completely agree with the physical universe being infinite in all physical measurements.
Some one else already pointed out that time has never been defined as anything universally. There is no correct factual definition everyone can use without the word being redefined. I see time as a measure of time, whether or not different amounts of change happen in the same amount of time, that is what I see it as. Many others agree with me. It is the most wide spread definition there is as far as I know. So, um, try saying what you said again....
I believe what he means is that measurement of time has been standardized with physical constants. Whether time is an actual object or another dimension or just a measuring unit(like the kilometer) or something else entirely is where there is disagreement. Basically everyone agrees how long a minute or an hour is, but it is whether time is anything at all, or if it is something, what exactly it is that there is disagreement upon.
Okay then, seeing as you're perfecting yout TL;DR rant, answer this: Do you believe religion is the root of all evil? I won't say anything, my opinion will remin neutral until you answer. I just want to see what you say to that. Also, ignorance is not an option, I see so far in this thread that you've ignored the obvious 'flaws' with christianity and only quoted and argued with people who are easy shots. EDIT: Also, time is the linear measurement of change. It's not that hard when you don't overcomplicate it.
1. I believe false religion is the root of all evil. Only one religion has restrained itself from causing evil directly: Biblical Christianity This is one of the reasons I follow it. And if you start saying Catholicism started all these wars and shiz I'm going to crack up--I've gotten to the point where the concept of Catholicism being Christian is laughable. 2. Read what I said before about time, you can't prove that, I agree with you, but most of the people I am debating with do not.
It's not that they prevented people from doing it, it's just that it was traditionally written in Latin and orally preached to an audience. Most members of the congregation couldn't read English anyway, so a translation would have done little good. A possible thought process of the church would be, "****! The Muslims took our holy land, this may damage the credulity of our religion!" But that's not what happened. A "possible" thought process is not an actual one. The real reason for the invasion, or rather militarization, was a request for aid from a Byzantine ruler. It was morphed into a "holy" war but the reason for assault was not monetary or religious.
That's really not how it worked. A request for aid isn't a "take over my country." A request for aid is, "these crazy bastards are in our country and are wreckin' ****! We more closely resemble each other than our attackers, help us! Besides we're on more peaceful terms!" And the pope must be thinking, "well ****, they knock over them, they come for us. Use their country as a buffer!" Of course there are always political and cultural influences but my argument isn't that people are influenced by religion, rather that the original decision was not officially made for those reasons. Later crusades were made for religious decisions. The...initial...reason...for...assault...was...not...religious...or...monetary. Regardless, glad to see your not picking and choosing targets anymore. It's nice to see a Christian correct a fellow Christian. Instead of placing a bunch of qualifiers and buts and maybes in front of their arguments. Consider that in physics, motion alters time; in psychology, different stimuli alter our perception of time; and in philosophy, there's disagreement on whether time is even real. Just thought I might chip that in.
Time is definitely real Nitrous (damnit i promised myself not to post in this thread again). The reason that it is real is because we set it to something outside of our biased prospective. For instance we used to set it based on the time of light v. darkness. Now we set it based on one rotation of the earth, and to measure it completely we use exact tools like decaying atoms to measure it. I personally never measure time in my mind i use outside tools so im really not sure what you're talking about.
Umm...what? I agree evil is a religious word, but it is never defined in any religion as a product of believing it, most religions identify it as something originating from the lack of it...so no. I HATE subjective moral, not that hate people who follow it, or anything like that, but I hate what it leads to...what I call evil. Should morality be an opinion I could say, "What Hitler did was the right thing." No one could correct me....that doesn't seem right..
The word 'Evil' is religious. Religions usually define 'Right' and 'Wrong'. Most of our laws come from religion. And who are we to say something is wrong? E.g. If it wasn't for Murder, we wouldn't be here. Murder is part of the ecosystem, a BIG part. Stopping murder is stopping nature.