How can there not be a God ?

Light would be unable to move without time. Anything that needs to move, needs time. Also please post your explanation of radioactive decay.

The word time is a human construct, but the phenomenon of time definately exists - its the driving force behind all change - only in a completely non changing environment could time not exist. Although a non changing environment can still support time, change needs time.

The fact we can use external sources to measure time proves to me that it doesn't only exist in our minds - atomic clocks use the changing state of cesium to accurately represent time.

The Hafele-Keating Experiments also seem to prove time exists, measurements using atomic clocks were taken to prove that time passes at different speeds in different gravitational environments. It did, if this was a human construct these experiments would not have been possible.

Google for it and you can see.

I believe time exists - and not only for humans.

TheStoon

 

So where is time at?

 

What does that mean???

 

your question is silly. It's like asking where is space at or where the universe at.

 

I say it exists, just not in linear form, but only now, in the moment, that is all there is.
Since I accepted that I have had a few dreams that didn't obey my definition of what time was, I could not ever see it the same way, it doesn't work for me.
It exists, but not the way I used to picture it. As for radioactive decay, I hope I can make it through this life without knowing much about it, what do you think? Will it one day be critical information that will save my skin? Hope not.
Google is great, but sure, I can see, I can also say my reality don't fit that mold.

 

right here

 

There is nothing in one perception that necessarily is a cause or effect of another perception. All that can be said is that the experience of the appearence of the one upon the appearence of the other, leads us to infer the appearence of the one upon the appearence of the other, and this inference is only a habit of the mind and not a quality of the objects themselves.

 

Ok. It's more clear now. Since both a small rock and a duck will float, if she weighs the same as a duck, she is a witch.

Are you implying that something can happen without a prior cause (such as existence)?

 

Precisely what it says, nothing more, nothing less. When you answer this question you know what time is.

 

where is a cause implicit in anything? all we have to go on are perceptions, and where in our perception of anything is a cause, it is by definition something outside of it but then how is it related? the relation is not in the objects themselves, but rather in our own minds.

 

okay, I may not have been very clear there but was trying to show how the mind is in the habit of inferring "effects" from "causes" as if there was some kind of productive principal in the one that "causes" the other. But that we can't infer one from the other because there is nothing in the perception that can be used as a basis for that inference.

I would also like to say that there is no evidence from the senses that can lead to the belief that their objects continue to exist when not perceived.

 

The hammers inertia drove the nail in. I see a cause effect relationship here.

Which are the cause of our intentional actions.

The relationship is in our minds but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist in reality. Uranus was orbiting the sun before we percieved it's existence. If there was no cause (gravity) for Uranus to orbit the sun, it would just fly off into space (most likely, without gravity, it wouldn't exist at all).