TIME CONSTANCY = PROOF of GOD

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! =)