butterflylion:


As you are today can you call 10 to be two? Can you call 200 to be twelve?

The symbol and the name are inextricably linked. I do not know how to say this to you again.

Without a symbol there is no name to give!!!

I understood what you are saying, numbers can be recognized by it's symbols (same as ideas), this is entirely different from the main issue that led to this argument
In terms of meaning symbols and numbers differs
Simply saying "the existence of numbers can't be proven"

author=chemystery post=60124030]
There is however uncertainty base on that value. Meanwhile, it's a good start agreeing that the universe is about billion years old against the bible chronological proof of less than 10,000 years. That's a good start!

Here we go again with the goalpost shifting

When did this argument shift to the age of the universe as posited by science and those from the Bible? I thought you claimed the universe was indeterminate and when I showed you that it is according to science you now move to the Bible version? na wa o.

Besides nowhere did the Bible say anything about 10000 years (just had to clear that for you and not encouraging your goalpost shifting)

For the 4th time stop goalpost shifting.

if science had close the window for further research, you would have believed the earth is <10,000 years old, and that snakes eat dusts too. The god theory is there to give cheap answers but science is disproving them all!

Despite your claim of theists being behind the big bang theory you still went ahead to say the above? Were the big bang theist originators not scientists? Your comments are making less and less sense as you go along.

explanation out of wishful thinking. Is it by saying something cannot exist out of nothing but something called god existed out of nothing? RIP logic!

Still struggling with the word ETERNAL I see.

No you an exception o. Have you forgotten? You are an extraterrestrial being that can explain things beyond human limitation

.

Even after you made that declaration above about the limitations of man you still claim I am the exception

You do not need extraterrestrials to explain or understand what science has proposed in accordance with their observations per our observable universe when those extraterrestrials would be limited to their own observable universe.

*speaking as if extraterrestrials do exist* they exist outside this earth or it's environs. So how then would we need extraterrestrials to interpret our observable universe when they clearly have theirs?

obinna58:

Not at all
Time was never there before man cos man invented time, your time definition was right cos that exactly how it should be in order to suit measurement,
Of course the galaxy is about 13.21Billionyrs and planet is 4.543billionyrs forgetting that it was possibly calculated with the help of "time invention" and there no difference between then and now except that the earth is passing through it's own process of life which at a time expires (completed it's life span), life sizes to exist and that infinite time you think exist continues
I never said 100yrs is equal to 10yrs just that I equated it mathematically to an animal which has about 1000+Yrs of life span and made equivalent to 100yrs

Do you believe in God? Cos I think that might be themain reason you are being impervious to this argument

i do believe in God.. But i just gave you "facts" proving that time was before man..I've explained it.. I get your point... And i think one pivotal error is that you think man invented time.. "NO ONE INVENTED TIME.. WE WERE ALL BORN IN TIME".... still doubting? pick your browser and search for the man that invented time?.. i bet you that the result you'll will get will be along the lines of " so.. so..so person was the first one/person that invented a "TIME-KEEPING" device/machine... what man did was just to device a mechanism for keeping track of time... I'll like you to know that my point is profound.. Its not about being impervious.. its about you not seeing that believing that we(Humans) were the one that invented time is erroneous.. If that is what you still think.. It means you never understood what time is .. And my explanation will be of no meaning if that isn't understood.. i guess you are thinking that time is or refers to the ticking of the clock or turning of the pages of a calendar...But really these are just incidental physical manifestation(set in place by man) of the underlying concept... If you really want to understand this simply, Take your time and Read my comments again.....

On a lighter note.. i do believe in God.. I embrace ATR( -Yoruba Religion)... I'm a scientist, i believe in empirical evidences.. But i want you to know that the concept of materialism is not entirely true Physics will explain that to you..... If that's the basis upon which your atheism stands find another .. lol don't mind me am a free thinker too... But seriously.. the concept is not entirely true...

butterflylion:


Here we go again with the goalpost shifting

When did this argument shift to the age of the universe as posited by science and those from the Bible? I thought you claimed the universe was indeterminate and when I showed you that it is according to science you now move to the Bible version? na wa o.

Besides nowhere did the Bible say anything about 10000 years (just had to clear that for you and not encouraging your goalpost shifting)

For the 4th time stop goalpost shifting.

One time you are ridiculing scientific theories, the other time you are still using parts of same scientific theory as basis of your argument. Remember you also deny having faith in god all in the name of avoiding to face a task put forth to you and your goons. Yet you are being logical and sincere. RIP logic and sincerity!

Despite your claim of theists being behind the big bang theory you still went ahead to say the above? Were the big bang theist originators not scientists? Your comments are making less and less sense as you go along.

It still doesn't disprove the fact I stated nor the fact that theist propounded the big bang theory



Still struggling with the word ETERNAL I see.


.

Even after you made that declaration above about the limitations of man you still claim I am the exception

You do not need extraterrestrials to explain or understand what science has proposed in accordance with their observations per our observable universe when those extraterrestrials would be limited to their own observable universe.

*speaking as if extraterrestrials do exist* they exist outside this earth or it's environs. So how then would we need extraterrestrials to interpret our observable universe when they clearly have theirs?

those things you claim are beyond human comprehension is what you have been explaining out of wishful thinking. Of course, that makes you an exception - superbeing, celestial being or extraterrestrial being. I don't know which of the categories you fell into.

kayoph:


i do believe in God.. But i just gave you "facts" proving that time was before man..I've explained it.. I get your point... And i think one pivotal error is that you think man invented time.. "NO ONE INVENTED TIME.. WE WERE ALL BORN IN TIME".... still doubting? pick your browser and search for the man that invented time?.. i bet you that the result you'll will get will be along the lines of " so.. so..so person was the first one/person that invented a "TIME-KEEPING" device/machine... what man did was just to device a mechanism for keeping track of time... I'll like you to know that my point is profound.. Its not about being impervious.. its about you not seeing that believing that we(Humans) were the one that invented time is erroneous.. If that is what you still think.. It means you never understood what time is .. And my explanation will be of no meaning if that isn't understood.. i guess you are thinking that time is or refers to the ticking of the clock or turning of the pages of a calendar...But really these are just incidental physical manifestation(set in place by man) of the underlying concept... If you really want to understand this simply, Take your time and Read my comments again.....

I told him same thing but he still felt like arguing.

The time concept as known by man was drawn from an already existing time which we do not know it's starting point. We simple deviced a means of measuring this time so as to better understand it and put it to use for our benefit.

As long as man is a finite being time as man knows it is always limited to mans construct and is different from the existing time man met and had to now measure.

Nobody created time. Time has always been there as a constant. Man simply deviced a means of measuring it within our limits.

butterflylion:



I told him same thing but he still felt like arguing.

The time concept as known by man was drawn from an already existing time which we do not know it's starting point. We simple deviced a means of measuring this time so as to better understand it and put it to use for our benefit.

As long as man is a finite being time as man knows it is always limited to mans construct and is different from the existing time man met and had to now measure.

Nobody created time. Time has always been there as a constant. Man simply deviced a means of measuring it within our limits.

Thank you sir.. That's it...

author=chemystery post=60129048]One time you are ridiculing scientific theories, the other time you are still using parts of same scientific theory as basis of your argument. Remember you also deny having faith in god all in the name of avoiding to face a task put forth to you and your goons. Yet you are being logical and sincere. RIP logic and sincerity!

No! I am not ridiculing scientific theories. I only ridiculed your eternal universe HYPOTHESIS or your multiverse HYPOTHESIS. Notice that the multiverse is actually a HYPOTHESIS and not a THEORY?

It still doesn't disprove the fact I stated nor the fact that theist propounded the big bang theory

I really do not understand where your confusion stems from? You said theists originated the big bang theory (which shows these theists were scientists) yet you claim knowing God does not enable science to go forward. I simply reminded you of your previous comment about theists and the big bang theory. Even you and anyone reading this would struggle to understand your confusion. Why say two different things and expect to make sense. If theists originated the big bang theory does this not show you that knowing God does not restrict science?



Still struggling with the word ETERNAL I see.


.

those things you claim are beyond human comprehension is what you have been explaining out of wishful thinking. Of course, that makes you an exception - superbeing, celestial being or extraterrestrial being. I don't know which of the categories you fell into.

You are still making conflicting statements.

Here was your comment below

The truth remains, I don't know how the universe came into existence, and no one knows. How do I know they don’t know? They don’t possess faculties I do not, they don’t have senses I don’t, they fear what I fear; They run from what I run from. They are faced with the same limitations like me. They are humans and not extraterrestrial being"

For this comment I then asked you

All you just said in bold still further Buttresses my point about limitations and since science does not exist without people whom you just said are limited, do you now agree that science is limited based of your words in bold?

You then answered that you would have agreed to my comment but it seems I am an exception to the rule and here you are talking about me having wishful thinking.

Was your eternal universe claim not wishful thinking? When that argument was defeated you said the universe has a beginning.

Now you claim I have wishful thinking even after I asked you if science is limited or not based on your comment above and you declined to answer. So answer me now. Based on your previous comment which I have brought forward here is science limited or not?

Plus if all I have been saying has simply been working with comments you made logically, how then were my thoughts wishful thinking?

butterflylion:


No! I am not ridiculing scientific theories. I only ridiculed your eternal universe HYPOTHESIS or your multiverse HYPOTHESIS. Notice that the multiverse is actually a HYPOTHESIS and not a THEORY?

Same way you lied you didn't ridicule science, same way you have lied I mentioned about multi verse hypothesis. I'm waiting for the next lie!

I really do not understand where your confusion stems from? You said theists originated the big bang theory (which shows these theists were scientists) yet you claim knowing God does not enable science to go forward. I simply reminded you of your previous comment about theists and the big bang theory. Even you and anyone reading this would struggle to understand your confusion. Why say two different things and expect to make sense. If theists originated the big bang theory does this not show you that knowing God does not restrict science?

so you don't know theists are confused?
They accept the bible as truth, meaning they believe earth is flat, snakes eats dust, rainbow is caused by god, god created the universe.

Yet also accept scientific fact of spherical earth, snakes fees on insects and small animals, rainbow is caused by refraction of lights on water droplets, big bang theory.

Just like it is a fact that snakes don't eat dust, same way the theists that propounded big bang couldn't shy away from facts that god didn't create the universe. But out of their delusion and deep-seated need to believe, they keep on believing in absurdities.

Still struggling with the word ETERNAL I see.


.



You are still making conflicting statements.

Here was your comment below



For this comment I then asked you



You then answered that you would have agreed to my comment but it seems I am an exception to the rule and here you are talking about me having wishful thinking.

Was your eternal universe claim not wishful thinking? When that argument was defeated you said the universe has a beginning.

Now you claim I have wishful thinking even after I asked you if science is limited or not based on your comment above and you declined to answer. So answer me now. Based on your previous comment which I have brought forward here is science limited or not?

Plus if all I have been saying has simply been working with comments you made logically, how then were my thoughts wishful thinking?

I have been consistent in telling you that the universe has a beginning which is indeterminate. In science, we call such values which cannot be determined infinity!

You are simply speaking out of wishful thinking cos all you claimed are beyond human limits are explained within your limit. If you aren't human, you let me know so that I can know you.

author=chemystery post=60130635]Same way you lied you didn't ridicule science, same way you have lied I mentioned about multi verse hypothesis. I'm waiting for the next lie!

Please take small small dey lie you hear? This was your comment below

chemystery:
I didn't propound the theory, neither am i the claimant. I'm neither claiming it is right nor wrong. But if you think it is wrong, then disprove it.


The universe is indeterminate. Hence we can say it is eternal


I never mentioned anywhere that the universe created itself. Since the universe is eternal, no one knows if it created itself or created by something else.

An eternal universe is what the multiverse hypothesis is all about. How can you deny not saying the very thing you said? Na wa o

I know I am not blind, neither have I been hallucinating throughout this discussion so clear you said what I just quoted Abi no be talk am again?

so you don't know theists are confused?
They accept the bible as truth, meaning they believe earth is flat, snakes eats dust, rainbow is caused by god, god created the universe

Goalpost shifted again.

You said knowing God restricts science yet you said theists who were scientists originated the big bang theory and you still cannot see how you punctured your entire argument with your own hands?

Yet also accept scientific fact of spherical earth, snakes fees on insects and small animals, rainbow is caused by refraction of lights on water droplets, big bang theory.

Look above

Just like it is a fact that snakes don't eat dust, same way the theists that propounded big bang couldn't shy away from facts that god didn't create the universe. But out of their delusion and deep-seated need to believe, they keep on believing in absurdities

. So much confusion. How can someone who believes in God and creation originate the big bang theory if he felt it was against creation? You seem confused. Read what i wrote above again.

I have been consistent in telling you that the universe has a beginning which is indeterminate. In science, we call such values which cannot be determined infinity!

Indeterminate simply means not exactly known, established, or defined. However science says you are wrong because they say the universe has been scientifically determined to be about 13 billion years old. So how then does indeterminate and eternal come in when we have a determined finite time?

You are simply speaking out of wishful thinking cos all you claimed are beyond human limits are explained within your limit. If you aren't human, you let me know so that I can know you.

Again I ask you, how can I be dwelling on fantasies when all I have done has been to work with the things you have said. I already showed you where you mentioned eternal universe above. Was that my wishful thinking at work too?

You are very good.
however, it is not possible for the universe to have a beginning and an end! it is not also possible for the universe to have a boundary so there has to be a multiverse! so you know i strongly believe in the existence of God...and sometimes i wonder whether he has go to visit other universe and the world is on autopilot until he returns

butterflylion:


Please take small small dey lie you hear? This was your comment below




An eternal universe is what the multiverse hypothesis is all about. How can you deny not saying the very thing you said? Na wa o

I know I am not blind, neither have I been hallucinating throughout this discussion so clear you said what I just quoted Abi no be talk am again?








Goalpost shifted again.

You said knowing God restricts science yet you said theists who were scientists originated the big bang theory and you still cannot see how you punctured your entire argument with your own hands?



Look above



. So much confusion. How can someone who believes in God and creation originate the big bang theory if he felt it was against creation? You seem confused. Read what i wrote above again.




Indeterminate simply means not exactly known, established, or defined. However science says you are wrong because they say the universe has been scientifically determined to be about 13 billion years old. So how then does indeterminate and eternal come in when we have a determined finite time?



Again I ask you, how can I be dwelling on fantasies when all I have done has been to work with the things you have said. I already showed you where you mentioned eternal universe above. Was that my wishful thinking at work too?

butterflylion:


Please take small small dey lie you hear? This was your comment below




An eternal universe is what the multiverse hypothesis is all about. How can you deny not saying the very thing you said? Na wa o







Goalpost shifted again.

You said knowing God restricts science yet you said theists who were scientists originated the big bang theory and you still cannot see how you punctured your entire argument with your own hands?



Look above



. So much confusion. How can someone who believes in God and creation originate the big bang theory if he felt it was against creation? You seem confused. Read what i wrote above again.

Same way you biblically believed snake eats dust and also believe scientifically that it doesn't eats animals. I don't know how you theists live in such delusion, you can explain to me.

Indeterminate simply means not exactly known, established, or defined. However science says you are wrong because they say the universe has been scientifically determined to be about 13 billion years old. So how then does indeterminate and eternal come in when we have a determined finite time?

there are scientific theories that say the earth is about billions of years, there are those that said the earth is infinite. Anyone can chose to go for anyone base on the data that is available to him until everyone is able to come to a consensus. That is science for you. But this is not the case with you. You believe the biblical age of the universe as <10000 years, and still believe in the scientific theory of 13 billion years. Please, how did you do it?

Again I ask you, how can I be dwelling on fantasies when all I have done has been to work with the things you have said. I already showed you where you mentioned eternal universe above. Was that my wishful thinking at work too?

I mentioned eternal universe and I explained instances where we can approximate time as infinite due to unavailability of data. But you cannot prove first that god exists yet you can go beyond your human limitation explain his existence.

author=chemystery post=60132573]Same way you biblically believed snake eats dust and also believe scientifically that it doesn't eats animals. I don't know how you theists live in such delusion, you can explain to me.

Stop forcing a goalpost shift on me. I say I no want na . Our discussion is not about what theists scientists believe you hear?

there are scientific theories that say the earth is about billions of years, there are those that said the earth is infinite. Anyone can chose to go for anyone base on the data that is available to him until everyone is able to come to a consensus. That is science for you. But this is not the case with you. You believe the biblical age of the universe as <10000 years, and still believe in the scientific theory of 13 billion years. Please, how did you do it?

Goalpost shift attempt again

Where and when did I ever mention a 10000 year old universe as my belief? You came with scientific knowledge and so far all I have done has been to stay within the limits of science. You on the other hand has been the one trying to force this discussion to shift to theism or the bible which I have repeatedly pointed out to you.

Also the eternal or infinite earth hypothesis should not be on that list you put up there. The eternal earth hypothesis is what it is... A HYPOTHESIS which cannot be scientifically proven as true beyond science fiction.

I mentioned eternal universe and I explained instances where we can approximate time as infinite due to unavailability of data. But you cannot prove first that god exists yet you can go beyond your human limitation explain his existence.

This discussion has never been about proving the existence of God. Rather it has been about the eternal nature of God as against your claim of an eternal nature of the universe based on your indeterminate clause.

Stop goalpost shifting you will not hear

DMerciful:
You are very good.
however, it is not possible for the universe to have a beginning and an end! it is not also possible for the universe to have a boundary so there has to be a multiverse! so you know i strongly believe in the existence of God...and sometimes i wonder whether he has go to visit other universe and the world is on autopilot until he returns

First of all thanks for the compliment.

Well some pseudoscientists hypothesise that there must be a multiverse but this is not true due to the problems associated with it. Allow me elucidate.

A major problem is that it is undefined, and accordingly scientists cannot even agree what it is. One version seems to indicate that every quantum event generates at least one additional universe. Given that the universe has at least 10^83 particles undergoing quantum events in truly amazing short periods of time, the number of universes gets out of hand, to say nothing of the conservation laws and the signalling problems.

There is also a problem that with such a plethora of universes, one might expect some form of interference or overlap between some, but seemingly not. And here is the killer, there is no way of falsifying it because it predicts nothing other than what cannot be observed.

There is no experiment or observation which could tell us if any specific multiverse theory is correct or not. Until some theory produces actual predictions which may be tested experimentally, there is no scientific reason to have any confidence in any existing multiverse theory.

This is what i have been trying to explain to the other young man above but he keeps saying indeterminate to him translates to eternal universe which means a multiverse and from what I just gave above this is unrealistic.

butterflylion:


Stop forcing a goalpost shift on me. I say I no want na . Our discussion is not about what theists scientists believe you hear?





Goalpost shift attempt again

Where and when did I ever mention a 10000 year old universe as my belief? You came with scientific knowledge and so far all I have done has been to stay within the limits of science. You on the other hand has been the one trying to force this discussion to shift to theism or the bible which I have repeatedly pointed out to you.

Also the eternal or infinite earth hypothesis should not be on that list you put up there. The eternal earth hypothesis is what it is... A HYPOTHESIS which cannot be scientifically proven as true beyond science fiction.



This discussion has never been about proving the existence of God. Rather it has been about the eternal nature of God as against your claim of an eternal nature of the universe based on your indeterminate clause.

Stop goalpost shifting you will not hear

You didn't address any of the issue raised.
You must not argue for and against science or your faith all at the same time just to score cheap points.

you can tell me you dropped you faith just like you did the other time?

Kindly address all this issues raised and stop giving unnecessary excuses, else go and rest!

chemystery:
You didn't address any of the issue raised.
You must not argue for and against science or your faith all at the same time just to score cheap points.

you can tell me you dropped you faith just like you did the other time?

Kindly address all this issues raised and stop giving unnecessary excuses, else go and rest!

Na wa o

What issue did you raise that I never addressed. Please show me.

You raised the issue of the indeterminate universe and termed it as eternal. Ever since, that has been our discussion.

So what did I not tackle as an issue you raised?

Trying to shift the goalpost to other things which were not part of our discussion are not issues raised because they are foreign to the discussion..

By the way oga you are yet to answer the question your comment raised regarding mans limitation. I asked you to give me a yes or no answer regarding the limitation of science since you claimed man is limited and you are Included in that limitation. I am still waiting.

Trying to claim that I am avoiding issues when all I have done has been respond sensibly to you is a sign of desperation . You on the other has been the one avoiding and trying so desperately to shift the goal post.

I have warned you about goalpost shifting 5 times already.

butterflylion:


Na wa o

What issue did you raise that I never addressed. Please show me.

You raised the issue of the indeterminate universe and termed it as eternal. Ever since, that has been our discussion.

So what did I not tackle as an issue you raised?

Trying to shift the goalpost to other things which were not part of our discussion are not issues raised because they are foreign to the discussion..

By the way oga you are yet to answer the question your comment raised regarding mans limitation. I asked you to give me a yes or no answer regarding the limitation of science since you claimed man is limited and you are Included in that limitation. I am still waiting.

Trying to claim that I am avoiding issues when all I have done has been respond sensibly to you is a sign of desperation . You on the other has been the one avoiding and trying so desperately to shift the goal post.

I have warned you about goalpost shifting 5 times already.

Sir. Pls I beg free the guy. I have been following this debate and what I have noticed is that he is trying too hard to lure you into another discussion but I love the way you stayed on point. That is one attribute of a good debater I just learnt. He is like a man drowning but prefer to continue struggling in the pool instead of gripping the floater thrown at him. I had rather believe the big bang which holds more credibility as a Theory than the multiverse which is just a hypothesis and will likely stay that way.

delexy123:
Sir. Pls I beg free the guy. I have been following this debate and what I have noticed is that he is trying too hard to lure you into another discussion but I love the way you stayed on point. That is one attribute of a good debater I just learnt. He is like a man drowning but prefer to continue struggling in the pool instead of gripping the floater thrown at him. I had rather believe the big bang which holds more credibility as a Theory than the multiverse which is just a hypothesis and will likely stay that way.

Thank you bro. I didn't know others noticed the numerous attempts he made to change the discussion. He lost the argument from the very beginning but just felt like hanging on... (barely) .


Yes the multiverse is simply a far fetched unscientific hypothesis.

Hopefullandlord this is what a clean debate looks like. Your head would not fall off your neck if you actually did it.

I dey wait for you

chemystery:
You didn't address any of the issue raised.
You must not argue for and against science or your faith all at the same time just to score cheap points.

you can tell me you dropped you faith just like you did the other time?

Kindly address all this issues raised and stop giving unnecessary excuses, else go and rest!

Sir, I love your doggedness but learn to know when to bow out. You were schooled and your frantic effort to stay 'afloat' make your desperation more obvious. If I were you I will leave the scene quietly and research more to gather momentum instead of deviating from line of discussion and throwing fits. Try to understand that just because we can't fully comprehend a concept doesn't mean others do not and that doesn't make them extraterrestrial or alien. Shalom.

kayoph:


i do believe in God.. But i just gave you "facts" proving that time was before man..I've explained it.. I get your point... And i think one pivotal error is that you think man invented time.. "NO ONE INVENTED TIME.. WE WERE ALL BORN IN TIME".... still doubting? pick your browser and search for the man that invented time?.. i bet you that the result you'll will get will be along the lines of " so.. so..so person was the first one/person that invented a "TIME-KEEPING" device/machine... what man did was just to device a mechanism for keeping track of time... I'll like you to know that my point is profound.. Its not about being impervious.. its about you not seeing that believing that we(Humans) were the one that invented time is erroneous.. If that is what you still think.. It means you never understood what time is .. And my explanation will be of no meaning if that isn't understood.. i guess you are thinking that time is or refers to the ticking of the clock or turning of the pages of a calendar...But really these are just incidental physical manifestation(set in place by man) of the underlying concept... If you really want to understand this simply, Take your time and Read my comments again.....

On a lighter note.. i do believe in God.. I embrace ATR( -Yoruba Religion)... I'm a scientist, i believe in empirical evidences.. But i want you to know that the concept of materialism is not entirely true Physics will explain that to you..... If that's the basis upon which your atheism stands find another .. lol don't mind me am a free thinker too... But seriously.. the concept is not entirely true...

Do you think that there is a difference between now and 1billion yrs to come or even 1billion yrs ago if not for transformation which goes to everything that existed, later it will sieze to exist for some moments and then recycle the process again and again, from the beginning time is being used to measure all the processes
The no beginning no ending time you are using to describe your God does not exist
If you are using the term "timekeeping" yes that is what I'm talking about

The machines used as a mechanism for checking time made the existence of time possible
I'm sure u get it now

obinna58:


Do you think that there is a difference between now and 1billion yrs to come or even 1billion yrs ago if not for transformation which goes to everything that existed, later it will sieze to exist for some moments and then recycle the process again and again, from the beginning time is being used to measure all the processes
The no beginning no ending time you are using to describe your God does not exist
If you are using the term "timekeeping" yes that is what I'm talking about

The machines used as a mechanism for checking time made the existence of time possible
I'm sure u get it now

This is extremely laughable

The machines used for checking or measuring time are simply what they are. THEY CHECK AND MEASURE TIME AND DID NOT CREATE TIME.

For anyone to build a machine to check anything or measure anything it means that thing was there before the machine was built.

Let me give you a very small history.

In ancient times man developed ways of keeping or measuring time and some were

1. Sundial

2. Moondial

3. Obelisk

4. Water clock

5. Incense clock

6. Time ball

Etc

All these methods were used to measure time and in the case of the sundial they made use of the movement of the sun to keep track of time and this is how we know that when the sun is over our head it's noon day. The watches and clocks we have today work with the same principle but with the addition of seconds, minutes and hours for sake of precision.

However when your watch says 12 o'clock and you look at the sun, you will see it is over your head.

Time has always been there. We simply learnt how to measure it. We did not cause time to exist. It existed before us. We simply began measuring it for our own benefit.

Stop arguing and get this as simply as I have illustrated. Time is not your slave, you are a slave to time. Time is your master while you simply learned how to live with this master.

butterflylion:


Na wa o

What issue did you raise that I never addressed. Please show me.

You raised the issue of the indeterminate universe and termed it as eternal. Ever since, that has been our discussion.

So what did I not tackle as an issue you raised?

Trying to shift the goalpost to other things which were not part of our discussion are not issues raised because they are foreign to the discussion..

By the way oga you are yet to answer the question your comment raised regarding mans limitation. I asked you to give me a yes or no answer regarding the limitation of science since you claimed man is limited and you are Included in that limitation. I am still waiting.

Trying to claim that I am avoiding issues when all I have done has been respond sensibly to you is a sign of desperation . You on the other has been the one avoiding and trying so desperately to shift the goal post.

I have warned you about goalpost shifting 5 times already.

You don't need to tell me, when you started shouting goal post shift on every points raised is evident you don't know what else to say than trolling yourself about. You want us to start arguing "You shifted goalpost" ; "No I didn't" kind of argument but I will not clutch straws with you. Go and rest

chemystery:

You don't need to tell me, when you started shouting goal post shift on every points raised is evident you don't know what else to say than trolling yourself about. You want us to start arguing "You shifted goalpost" ; "No I didn't" kind of argument but I will not clutch straws with you. Go and rest

You have already been told by an observer exactly what I kept telling you. Let that bring sense to you.

delexy123:
Sir, I love your doggedness but learn to know when to bow out. You were schooled and your frantic effort to stay 'afloat' make your desperation more obvious. If I were you I will leave the scene quietly and research more to gather momentum instead of deviating from line of discussion and throwing fits. Try to understand that just because we can't fully comprehend a concept doesn't mean others do not and that doesn't make them extraterrestrial or alien. Shalom.

You don't tell me when to have fun and play. I know butterfly lion more than you do. He is a troll who claimed he dropped his faith in God just to avoid a task I gave him. You don't engage such insincere people in logical argument cos it leads no where. He didn't came to make sense, he came to troll and I am giving it a good time to troll him to his ennui. Meanwhile, if such insincerity makes sense to you, then you are one of same kind and not worth my mention until boredom strikes and I feel like trolling with your own tactics

butterflylion:


You have already been told by an observer exactly what I kept telling you. Let that bring sense to you.

what do you expect from someone who believes snake eats dust like you do? Or that earth is not more than 10,000years old?

chemystery:
what do you expect from someone who believes snake eats dust like you do? Or that earth is not more than 10,000years old?

Well an observer is an observer and he spoke without bias. I know you wished so badly to make sense but you never did right from the start

butterflylion:


Well an observer is an observer and he spoke without bias. I know you wished so badly to make sense but you never did right from the start

If i cant convince you on simple fact that snakes don't eat dust due to your deep-seated need to believe, what other scientific fact will then make sense to you? So simply go and rest!

chemystery:
If i cant convince you on simple fact that snakes don't eat dust due to your deep-seated need to believe, what other scientific fact will then make sense to you? So simply go and rest!

Yet I spoke strictly scientifically with you and dropped scientific facts down your gullet.

I know it's hard to accept but let me echo the words of the observer, " you got schooled son"

butterflylion:


Yet I spoke strictly scientifically with you and dropped scientific facts down your gullet.

I know it's hard to accept but let me echo the words of the observer, " you got schooled son"

ehya! You really wish. At the end of the day you live in delusion that snake eats dust and the earth is <10,000 years old. So scientific of you, kikikikikikiki!

All you have been doing is trying to shove dogmatic conclusion of god being eternal and creating the universe down my throat, and doing so without any proof! Playing the same card with you, I also had to invent similar dogmatic card of eternal universe. Since we can conclude without proof that god is eternal, we can also make such hasty conclusion for the universe, still without proof. But now, you started speaking in the light of science of universe being 13billion years, hence defeating you conclusion that god created the universe (cos according to your comic book called buybull, god only did that just less than 10,000years ago).

I played on your gullibility and you fell for it! You knew you were about shooting yourself in the leg that was why you were screaming goalpost shifting on every issue you were suppose to address. Hahahaha

I have always made my position known that I don't know when the universe began and how it began. And it will forever remain so until science is able to give a satisfactory answer.

Meanwhile, go and read your buybull and continue living in the delusion that earth was created by an imaginary superbeing <10000years ago, and that he created it flat and snake consumes dust.

Hahahaha, I got schooled out of you wishful thinking that god created the universe. When? You don't know whether it is 13billion years ago or 10,000years ago. Is it not shameful to you that man is telling god when he created the universe as well as the shape of the earth?
Please go and read your buybull, I'm done with you
Smh!

chemystery:
ehya! You really wish. At the end of the day you live in delusion that snake eats dust and the earth is <10,000 years old. So scientific of you, kikikikikikiki!

All you have been doing is trying to shove dogmatic conclusion of god being eternal and creating the universe down my throat, and doing so without any proof! Playing the same card with you, I also had to invent similar dogmatic card of eternal universe. Since we can conclude without proof that god is eternal, we can also make such hasty conclusion for the universe, still without proof. But now, you started speaking in the light of science of universe being 13billion years, hence defeating you conclusion that god created the universe (cos according to your comic book called buybull, god only did that just less than 10,000years ago).

I played on your gullibility and you fell for it! You knew you were about shooting yourself in the leg that was why you were screaming goalpost shifting on every issue you were suppose to address. Hahahaha

I have always made my position known that I don't know when the universe began and how it began. And it will forever remain so until science is able to give a satisfactory answer.

But go and read your buybull and continue living in the delusion that earth was created by an imaginary superbeing <10000years ago, and that he created it flat and snake consumes dust.
Smh!

And your fogged up brain did not see where I asked you if I ever mentioned during the discussion the I believe in a 10000 year old universe?

Lying just to hold a conversation is a sign of a desperately lonely soul.

now due to shame you claim you played on my gullibility even when I never offered any position I hold to you. What a desperate fellow you are

Go and do something useful with your life. Be sure to mark off debates from the list. You suck at it.

butterflylion:


And your fogged up brain did not see where I asked you if I ever mentioned during the discussion the I believe in a 10000 year old universe?

Lying just to hold a conversation is a sign of a desperately lonely soul.

now due to shame you claim you played on my gullibility even when I never offered any position I hold to you. What a desperate fellow you are

Go and do something useful with your life. Be sure to mark off debates from the list. You suck at it.

kikikikikikiki, e pain am
You are always know to deny your faith na! Kikikikikikiki!

nejifresh:
The topic of this discussion is beyond the conduits of religion or science. It falls within the purview of Philosophy and Mysticism. To get acquainted see www.rosicrucian.org

Hey pls tell me more about d link u posted, i checked it out but, its not well detailed, wenever i input my name and email it doesn't connect. can u send me a dm lets talk.