TIME CONSTANCY = PROOF of GOD

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! =)