I'd keep time out of it if I were you. It has a nasty habit of speeding up or slowing down depending on how fast you are travelling. But I take your point!
You can manipulate the definition of time if you wanted to change it, you can manipulate other physical properties of system that cause differing results depending on other factors. The point being that regardless of what the definition of time is, one can apply scientific method and repeat, test, evaluate, ascertain and prove the things one is trying to demonstrate. It's also open to criticism and revision. Unlike religion, where by any test you can offer to prove the existence of god irrefutably will be failed. Criticism is rejected and revision is openly discouraged in religious doctrine.
Just watched last weeks prog. Struck me it was so full of 'it just is' on the big stuff it may was well have been a deep south bible-bashing one but with an unknown and mostly unprovable (its assumption which rules) theories I may just go read the gospels amd see how that compares
If you are implying that the concept of self, personality and emotion are evidence for something deeper than scientifically demonstrable evolutionarily beneficial features of life, such as intelligent design then offer some proof or an argument. Every religious individual I have ever tried to have a discussion with about religion always falls back to the words belief and faith. I would actually like to be wrong here, it would make things much easier for me to just throw my hands up and say that everything that has happened or ever will happen to me has happened because it was planned that way by a god and when I die I shall have some form of continuation of existence rather than a cessation of consciousness followed by unnoticed oblivion. It would come as some comfort to me in times of hardship. But I will never just accept that without being shown real proof that can be independently verified and repeated.
So, you stand in a Court of Law, Science in one hand and the Bible in the other? No need to answer btw.
I wouldn't swear meaningfully on a bible or anything else. I would say what I needed to say to effect the best result in court according to my expectations. It's not up to me to prove my own guilt, nor is it up to me to convince a jury that my own evidence would be the undeniable truth. It's clear that people lie in court all the time and putting one's hand On a book first and saying that one will not lie doesn't cause any ill effects after subsequent lying.
