# God... Is Time.



## Boss (Apr 29, 2015)

I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded. 

The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more. 

I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 29, 2015)

If you didn't divide time, everything would happen at once..


----------



## Boss (Apr 29, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> If you didn't divide time, everything would happen at once..



Impossible.  To "happen" requires Time.


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 29, 2015)

Time is the measurement of the motion of an object across a given space. 

d (distance) = r (rate)  times t (time) i.e.. d=rt

t = d/r

Clapton is God. Therefor, C (Clapton) = d/r

and C=t


----------



## BreezeWood (Apr 29, 2015)

.
*God... Is Time. *

 - of course, what has meaning of knowledge and morals have to do with anything ... ?

.


----------



## skye (Apr 29, 2015)

Time does not exist

How can  so called God be time

we worms crawling  here on Earth  can not understand our Infinite Eternal Source FATHER


----------



## eots (Apr 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?



time, time, it's so sublime
Well, they say it's non existent
But it's playing with my mind
and phone calls don't cost a dime
In the caverns of your feelings
Where the sun will never shine..


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

Mr. H. said:


> Time is the measurement of the motion of an object across a given space.
> 
> d (distance) = r (rate)  times t (time) i.e.. d=rt
> 
> ...



Distance and motion are meaningless without time. Therefore, C = 0/0. 

You are expressing our perception of Time passing. Time itself is not so easy to confirm. The best be can accomplish is proving it did exist, or at least it appears to have existed by evidence of the past.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

skye said:


> Time does not exist
> 
> How can  so called God be time
> 
> we worms crawling  here on Earth  can not understand our Infinite Eternal Source FATHER



We can't observe Time in the present or future, our only perception of Time is time passed. We have faith that present time existed because we have evidence of past time. We cannot prove present time existed or that it currently exists. Anything we perceive has already happened and is in the past. 

If we cannot physically observe it, does it really exist?


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?



That may be the dumbest and most reaching explanation of god I have ever read.  Wow!  What a wast of a few seconds!


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2015)

Perception is everything. Everything is perception.

All words are symbols and metaphors.

The universe is one.

Time is a word we have to try to describe something we think we perceive.

God is a word we have for something we think (or hope) we perceive.

If God exists, God is certainly beyond comprehension and definitely beyond definition.

Only personal revelation can serve as a basis for thinking about God.

As someone said earlier, if we don't divide time into our artificial measurements, everything happens at once. This may indeed be the case, that there is no 'time', but the manner in which our consciousness and experience function make it (nearly) impossible to think this way. We are fantastic creatures, but we have yet to integrate our capacities and limitations.


----------



## zaangalewa (Apr 30, 2015)

skye said:


> Time does not exist ...



How said Sokrates? "The people accept my authority because I'm able to say on very  good reasons what I don't know why." Okay - after a few thousand years it's not so easy to remember something very accurate any longer. But last year in Boulder (Colerado, USA) for example phycicists used Strontium with a frequency of 430-thousand-billion Hz to build a clock. This clock fails only a second in 5 billion years. Nearly unbelieveable. So if time does not exist - what did they do?


*Stufen*

_Wie jede Blüte welkt und jede Jugend
Dem Alter weicht, blüht jede Lebensstufe,
Blüht jede Weisheit auch und jede Tugend
Zu ihrer Zeit und darf nicht ewig dauern.
Es muß das Herz bei jedem Lebensrufe
Bereit zum Abschied sein und Neubeginn,
Um sich in Tapferkeit und ohne Trauern
In andre, neue Bindungen zu geben.
Und jedem Anfang wohnt ein Zauber inne,
Der uns beschützt und der uns hilft, zu leben.

Wir sollen heiter Raum um Raum durchschreiten,
An keinem wie an einer Heimat hängen,
Der Weltgeist will nicht fesseln uns und engen,
Er will uns Stuf' um Stufe heben, weiten.
Kaum sind wir heimisch einem Lebenskreise
Und traulich eingewohnt, so droht Erschlaffen,
Nur wer bereit zu Aufbruch ist und Reise,
Mag lähmender Gewöhnung sich entraffen.

Es wird vielleicht auch noch die Todesstunde
Uns neuen Räumen jung entgegen senden,
Des Lebens Ruf an uns wird niemals enden...
Wohlan denn, Herz, nimm Abschied und gesunde!_

Hermann Hesse


----------



## eots (Apr 30, 2015)

zaangalewa said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Time does not exist ...
> ...


Made a highly accurate measurement of the holographic illusion I like to call..."reality"


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2015)

Our assumed perception of what we call 'time' was divided into 430-thousand-billion artificial intervals, maybe.


----------



## eots (Apr 30, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Our assumed perception of what we call 'time' was divided into 430-thousand-billion artificial intervals, maybe.


infinite artificial intervals, perhaps


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> As someone said earlier, if we don't divide time into our artificial measurements, everything happens at once.



How can anything happen without time? 

Your argument is preceding itself.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science...Our perception of Time is false. *We assume Time exists*, we can't perceive the present.


In physics, time exists in terms of motion. That is not an "assumption."


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Time is God and God is Time.


God has spoken. That settles it.


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2015)

We only perceive the present. That is the only 'time' that ever is.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Time is a word we have to try to describe something we think we perceive.
> 
> God is a word we have for something we think (or hope) we perceive.
> 
> If God exists, God is certainly beyond comprehension and definitely beyond definition.



Follow your argument logically. Time and God both describe something we think we perceive. 

If we can comprehend and define Time, why can't we also comprehend and define God? 

In other words, if we can accept on faith that Time exists... why can't we also accept on faith that God exists? And if both can exist in the form of a perception that we can't prove or observe directly, could they not be one in the same?


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Distance and *motion* are *meaningless without time*.


Sure, a foot is a foot at noon, but not a foot any other time of day. 

You have it ass backwards as always, time is meaningless without motion.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Time is motion, and is proven.

Also, we do percieve the present. 

We lofty eyed humans call it "living in the moment."

This is the dumbest god thread quite literally ever, dude.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> We only perceive the present. That is the only 'time' that ever is.



No. It is impossible to perceive the present. Everything you use to perceive is reliant upon passing time. It takes time for light to travel from an object to your eye and the signal to travel to your brain and your brain to register what it experienced. By the time you have perceived it, the time has passed. It is forever a part of the past and you have no perception of anything in the present.


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2015)

Only what one perceives exist, and that happens 'now'.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Time is motion, and is proven.
> 
> Also, we do percieve the present.
> 
> ...



Then God is motion and also proven. 

We do not perceive the present. It's physically impossible. Everything perceived is in the past. You can call it whatever you want and have faith all day long. You cannot prove the present exists in reality. All you have is evidence that the present once existed and has now passed. Speed of light... it's a bugger!


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Time is motion, and is proven.
> ...


You forgot the part about proving god is time at all, for starters.

Second, of course the present exists. Just because you cant catch a fly doesnt mean it isnt proven that it whizzed by your face. We have tools to measure this. Time is simply a measurement, and is most definitely proven.

Its not simply a perception - its something that we measure that exists in reality that weve given a name to.


That its god? Thats just your hearsay. Ill stick with physics, which say nothing of time being god but are pretty clear on time


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Only what one perceives exist, and that happens 'now'.



What you perceive is not happening 'now' in the present. You can say it is... you can believe it. That's called "faith" in something. Your perception is dependent on the laws of nature. In order to see something, light has to travel... this takes time. By the time you have perceived it, time has passed and no longer exists in the present. If you go look at your reflection in the mirror, that was you a nano-second ago, not in the present. You can't see the present yet, it takes time for the light to travel. 

Is this not getting through?


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Second, of course the present exists.



Prove this?


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Only what one perceives exist, and that happens 'now'.
> ...


A nanosecond is technically the past, but practically now.

Speaking on perception, to a human, a nanosecond is now. Its so fast we are unable to percieve it happening. Thats why relativity matters when speaking on these things and physics come into play. To a human, you get slapped on the hand you feel it faster when youre watching it happen because light travels faster than the signal up the nerve.

But if you slap the nerve ending in the brain directly? Boom. You percieve the present.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Its not simply a perception - its something that we measure that exists in reality that weve given a name to.



You cannot prove what you cannot observe. You can have faith that present time exists. 

This is why I think Time is God.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> A nanosecond is technically the past, but practically now.



LMAO... Well... _practically_ now is not *now*, is it?


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Second, of course the present exists.
> ...


Sure.


Refer back to the formula posted for you a couple of pages ago on how we calculate time.

Note, its JUST a unit of measurement. 

The formula itself proves that it exists. I know you wont get that, thats fine...but it does the job youve asked if you understood physics.

Counter that it exists.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Its so fast we are unable to percieve it happening.



Exactly, but we know by physics that it HAS happened and thus what we perceive is already in the past.


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2015)

Nothing external can be proved without possibility of doubt and argument. All perception is subjective. The 'past' is a term we use for memory or to explain what we observe because we need labels. 
Logic decrees that perception can only happen in the present. The 'past' is not a place, a location where one can go or visit, the same as the 'future'. They are metaphors for what appears to our consciousness to occur.

Granted, however, that many seem to live in the past. Furthermore, much of humanity would seem to walk in a sleep state, to function under hypnosis, and that doesn't appear as very 'in the present'. Nevertheless, it cannot happen at any other time than now.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Its not simply a perception - its something that we measure that exists in reality that weve given a name to.
> ...


Except we can observe it. We measure it. Not on faith, but with tools.

Cutting posts does nothing for ya either, bud.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Its so fast we are unable to percieve it happening.
> ...


The technical past, the practical present.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > A nanosecond is technically the past, but practically now.
> ...


Depends.

Do you live 95 years, a day........an hour?

Relativity matters.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I know how to calculate time. 

You're supposed to be offering proof that present time exists.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



There's only one present. Your "practical present" is in the past. It's not technical, it's actual.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Umm..."present" is a term derived from said calculation.

Its as simple as mean, median mode.

Large, medium, small.

Sorry you no comprende.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


By technical i meant actual. So you just wasted......time!

Whats the moment when light hits your brain, itself, called?

The light is from the past. Yupp.

Whats the moment it hits your brain called? The present.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Well then,  I guess we're measuring God, aren't we? 

We cannot observe the present time. All our perceptions are dependent upon laws of nature and physics. Anything we have perceived already happened, it's over... it's forever in the past. We don't know if there is a present. We assume there must have been... that's faith.


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2015)

H. L. Mencken said it well, 
*We are here and it is now. Further than that, all human knowledge is moonshine.*


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



You mean the moment the light from something that is no longer in the present reaches the brain? And before the brain registers the light and sends signals to the nerves to produce our perception?

yes... all evidence that we do not perceive the present.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

If youre going to give the unit of measurement (time) to describe light speed reaching our brain and calling our perception of it "the past,"

What would you call the moment the light hits your brain itself - independent of when the light was from, but the moment its signal hits your brain? What unit of measurement would you give that moment?

Or tapping a nerve ending that you percieve instantaneously (no travel=no time).

Thats whatnwe call the present.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Umm..."present" is a term derived from said calculation.
> 
> Its as simple as mean, median mode.
> 
> ...



No, the word "present" seems to mean (to you), the perceptions we have of things in the past. 

I am still waiting for your proof that present time exists.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

I dont need to prove whats already proven.

Time is a unit of measure - it is proven to exist, we use tools and can calculate it.

The present is is not something as imagined as...say...."god is time cuz i said so!"

Further - proving our perception of time and WHEN we percieve something doesnt disprove that present exists. It only shows our brains interaction with it. 

For all intents and purposes, perception of time has dick all to do with time itself. Time is a measurement of movement, not of human perception. Present is simply where past and future intersect.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> If youre going to give the unit of measurement (time) to describe light speed reaching our brain and calling our perception of it "the past,"
> 
> What would you call the moment the light hits your brain itself - independent of when the light was from, but the moment its signal hits your brain? What unit of measurement would you give that moment?
> 
> ...



We can "call" things whatever we damn well please. I can "call" a zebra a striped horse. This doesn't mean a thing to physics. Our perception operates on physics, we don't perceive instantly with no travel/no time. It takes time for light to travel, for electric impulses to travel. We can't perceive present time, we only have the perception of time that has very recently passed, but it HAS passed. It's no longer in the present if it has already passed.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> I dont need to prove whats already proven.



It's not proven and it can't be proven. That's why I've challenged you to prove it.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> ...doesnt disprove that present exists.



Hold on... I don't have to disprove something you've yet to prove. ....Remember God?


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I dont need to prove whats already proven.
> ...


I just took a step forward.

That proves time exists. 

Again, time is a unit of measure of movement.

Now, to disprove time, youll have to disprove motion.

Good luck bro. Ill be right here on the treadmill quite literally time travelling while you try to disprove time. The manmade unit of measure.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > ...doesnt disprove that present exists.
> ...


Again....time is proven by motion. 

Because its literally its measurement.

Are you disputing motion? Lay your evidence on the table that motion doesnt exist.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

I suggest through the wormholes episode on time.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> The present is is not something as imagined as...say....



LOL... My faith's better than yours? Is that what you're trying to say? 

You have faith the present exists. You do not have proof. You cannot show proof that present time currently exists or that any future time might exist. All you can prove is that time existed.


----------



## zaangalewa (Apr 30, 2015)

eots said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > skye said:
> ...



Normally - without the danger to go lost in translation -  I had answered "Krurk" now - or something like this - to create a little surprise. Surprise is the reality what shows us "reality is outside". So:  How is time able to be a holographic Illusion outside of the freedom of our thoughts? Gives you anything a concrete hint how time could be a holographic illusion? Or do you think in general we are living in a kind of PC-game in a Matrix or something like this and we are also our own holographic illusion? But why holographic? Why not only illusion?


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Every step i take here running proves the present existed. Now its in the past.

Upp...there goes again.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 30, 2015)

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
Fritter and waste the hours in an off-hand way
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way

Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain
You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today
And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death

Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time
Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way
The time is gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2015)

The sole and single thing that cannot be doubted to exist is consciousness.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



LOL... I have never disputed that Time exists!
... that would make me an Atheist because I believe Time is God.  

If Time is proven by motion then so is God. 

You're supposed to be proving *present time* exists and not running away like a little girl.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss knows that time travel to the future is done and proven, right boss? 

The faster you move relative to other humans the faster their time passes, to you. Not only your brain though, which is fascinating. Your very cells dont age as much.

Funky! And im travelling to the future right now. Its proven mathmatically, not just in the hypothesis stages any more.


----------



## eots (Apr 30, 2015)

zaangalewa said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


a projected a virtual experiment  by the great I am created in linear time to study "emotions"


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Present time is past and futures intersect point. 

It exists mathematically. Its not that i cant prove it, its that you cant grasp it.

Thats not my flaw. Its yours.

Our perception of when things happen is not a factor in the literal calculation of time itself.

Only our movement.

I know. I know. You dont understand.


----------



## Muslim75 (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?


 
I would not say that "God is Time". In Islam, we say "God is The Time" (The Time, not Time).

An instance of it, look at communication in 1995 (before internet), then look at it in 2015 (with everything Internet brought) and realize the meaning of "God is The Time".

As to science, it does not stipulate that an almighty God does not exist, unless if people want to believe that about science. Einstein said more or less that "God does not do anything just by luck".


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Also....this whole time is god theory.

Missing how.any rational brain could conclude this when a, we invented time to describe motion and b, well.......there is no b there doesnt even need to be.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss knows that time travel to the future is done and proven, right boss?
> 
> The faster you move relative to other humans the faster their time passes, to you. Not only your brain though, which is fascinating. Your very cells dont age as much.
> 
> Funky! And im travelling to the future right now. Its proven mathmatically, not just in the hypothesis stages any more.



The only way you could travel into the future through proven physics is by traveling faster than the speed of light. Theories speculate of wormholes, but this is not proven science as of yet. 

Have you now abandoned your argument that we can prove present time exists? You seem to not want to talk about it anymore and the tone of your post indicates you want to now denigrate me personally because your panties are bunched. 

I've honestly got better stuff to do this morning.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Yea you lose, this thread was retarded frm jump. Go get over it


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss thread: "god is the human unit if measurement of motion! A duh."

Priceless.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



past present future are all real 

depends on how you slice space time


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Also....this whole time is god theory.
> 
> Missing how.any rational brain could conclude this when a, we invented time to describe motion and b, well.......there is no b there doesnt even need to be.



We didn't invent Time. Motion is motion. Time is time. If motion proves Time then it proves God. 

Again, we have no perception of time in the present tense. All our perception is of time which has passed. Present time, like God, is something we cannot observe or prove exists... we can only have FAITH.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)




----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2015)

If God is One, then, all time is one and it is all the present.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Also....this whole time is god theory.
> ...


No false. We have tools to measure it, calculate it, therefore it exists.

Do you not know why conceding theres a past, youre ALSO conceding present and future?

Of course not, youre too daft.

Past in relation to when, boss?

That question answers your retardation in the most pointed of ways. Past - which youce conceded to exist....is past...past when? Derp derp derp. Drool on that one.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> motion proves Time then it proves God


Motion MEASURES time and therefore by your own moronic "logic" measures the immeasurable God.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Also...i wasnt even gunna address the retardedness of future time travel only being possible if we travel the speed of light.

No. Wrong. Bad.

Future time travel happens every second.

Its needing to travel the speed of light for us to PERCIEVE time passing faster. But time is always in forward *motion, linear.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)




----------



## Hollie (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Also....this whole time is god theory.
> ...


Even by the "standards" of your pointless claims, the above silliness plumbs new depths of absurdity.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


He doesnt understand that by merely saying time has passed, hes conceding present and future exist.

Passed what, bawse?

 oye


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> He doesnt understand that by merely saying time has passed, hes conceding present and future exist.
> 
> Passed what, bawse?
> 
> oye



Not sure what inane point you hope to make here. You are supposed to be proving the present instance of time exists. All you have thus far presented is that we can calculate formulas that say it should exist. If time has passed, it is no longer in the present. It doesn't matter if you want to pretend these are merely words that can mean different things, the physics doesn't rely on language. Math is not words you can interpret differently because of personal prejudices. The maths say that humans cannot perceive present tense existence of time. I know that sounds shocking if you have always thought humans could.

We have no proof that time in present or future tense exists. The instance of 'present' we perceive is already in the past. You stated earlier that we "live in the moment" and this is true, but it is a matter of faith in something we cannot prove. The time in which "the moment" happened and what remains is forever in the past.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > He doesnt understand that by merely saying time has passed, hes conceding present and future exist.
> ...


umm, dipstick...

"past" is a descriptive term.

"past" is passed............WHEN>?

Dont dip duck and dodge now, which you will, because having to answer it straight forward comes with a self revelation that you didnt know what you were saying all along.

There's no such thing as "past," without present and future. You admit "past," ipso facto you admit present and future. Because the mere definition of "past" is how it falls on the time line in relation to present and future.

omgg.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > motion proves Time then it proves God
> ...



No, God is proven by Time. God can still be Time + (R)

Motion cannot happen without Time.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


god is proven by time?



flesh that out.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> "past" is a descriptive term.



Right.. it means "not the present or future."  Also.. "history."


Did you want to make a point?


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Already did... Go read the OP.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> You admit "past," ipso facto you admit present and future. Because the mere definition of "past" is how it falls on the time line in relation to present and future.



I've not denied that present or future might exist. 

I have faith they do and will, respectively. 

I can't prove it, I have faith in it like I have faith in God.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > "past" is a descriptive term.
> ...


i did make a point, you concede the existence of one, you concede the existence of all three. 

otherwise the term is meaningless.

"history" also implies "then" in relation to....THE EVENT'S FUTURE. 

Past, is history, it's THEN, but only in relation to present and future. dumbass.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


it was insignificant for what i'd constitute as proof.

so from my vehicle, you havent.

from yours you have?



ok, good for you bro.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Motion cannot happen without Time.


Ass backwards yet again. Time cannot happen without motion.


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2015)

...not wind, not flag; mind is moving...


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Well surely you don't think past history is currently happening, do you? This sounds a bit nuts. 

I've not "conceded" anything here. I don't know where you get such an idea. All my points have been made and supported, you're the one having a problem. Most of us comprehend the concept of time, past, present and future. Trying to pretend these are arbitrary terms that don't mean anything is silly. Trying to blur distinction between the past and present is just downright dishonest. 

I believe God exists, so I believe that Time exists, and we have a perception of that time after it passes.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You play too many games to be an adult. 

11th grade, if I had a guess.

YOURE the one that said only the past is proven to exist, but not the present and future. 

If past is PASSED, literally, that is RELATIVE TO PRESENT AND FUTURE. 

So by saying past exists, you necessarily concede present and future exist. 

If you don't understand yet, I'll break out the crayons and glitter glue like I usually have to for conservatives who cannot follow the nuance of a typical conversation. 

If you do understand but are being some sort of child about it, ok? Fuck you, then.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Motion cannot happen without Time.
> ...



And yet time passes for things not in motion.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?



Thank Time I'm smarter than you. Time damn you're dumb.

As I made my theist friend admit last night, it doesnt matter if we dont believe. Does time punish us if we dont believe? If god is time what is the devil?

Let's assume you are right something created the universe. Now tell us why you believe in an afterlife.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


the entire universe is in motion. another moron post from a retarded thread.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And this proves a god exists and cares about you?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And as time passes and knowledge increases, the inventions of gawds become less and less relevant.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Ah. So we're back to the insults and denigration? 

I've not said ANY time is proven to exist. There is evidence time happened and has passed. Does past time "exist" anymore? 

Present time is not observable, it's not physically possible. The best we can do is have faith that present time happened because we have a perception of passed time. Likewise, we can only have faith that future time will exist.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Don't know about caring. Time proves God exists.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> ...



Wow... You quoted the OP but you don't seem to have read it. This is NOT a religious debate thread.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well parts are in motion, parts are moving faster than the speed of light and parts are motionless. Time, however, is constantly happening. Regardless of whether Time facilitates motion or motion facilitates Time, the perception of present and future time is non-observable and depends on our faith that it exists.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


That's completely unsupportable.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Then why is it in the religion section?


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

Hollie said:


> That's completely unsupportable.



Time? 

Don't think so.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 30, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It's one of those clever unprovable debate squirts...


----------



## Hollie (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The newly created religion of "Time Pwooves Gawds"


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 30, 2015)

Time is not an empirical evidence for the existence of God...


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Then why is it in the religion section?



*Religion and Ethics*
Religion, *Philosophy* and the discussion of right and wrong.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Time is not an empirical evidence for the existence of God...



There is no empirical evidence for the existence of Time either. 

Faith is required to believe in both.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > That's completely unsupportable.
> ...


You don't understand.


----------



## zaangalewa (Apr 30, 2015)

eots said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Why have I to think now about a guy who accomplished a mission by eating a pretzel without to die, so the world has now a lot of neverending work? ... Holographic flash back? ...


*Monolog des Blinden*

_Alle, die vorübergehn,
gehn vorbei,
Sieht mich, weil ich blind bin, keiner stehn?
Und ich steh seit Drei ...

Jetzt beginnt es noch zu regnen!
Wenn es regnet, ist der Mensch nicht gut.
Wer mir dann begegnet, tut
so, als würde er mir nicht begegnen.

Ohne Augen steh ich in der Stadt.
Und sie dröhnt, als stünde ich am Meer.
Abends lauf ich hinter einem Hunde her,
der mich an der Leine hat.

Meine Augen hatten im August
ihren zwölften Sterbetag.
Warum traf der Splitter nicht die Brust
und das Herz, das nicht mehr mag?

Ach, kein Mensch kauft handgemalte
Ansichtskarten, denn ich hab kein Glück.
Einen Groschen, Stück für Stück!
Wo ich selber sieben Pfennig zahlte.

Früher sah ich alles so wie sie:
Sonne, Blumen, Frau und Stadt.
Und wie meine Mutter ausgesehen hat,
das vergeß ich nie.

Krieg macht blind. Das sehe ich an mir.
Und es regnet. Und es geht der Wind.
Ist denn keine fremde Mutter hier,
die an ihre eignen Söhne denkt?
Und kein Kind,
dem die Mutter etwas für mich schenkt?_

Erich Kästner


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > If you didn't divide time, everything would happen at once..
> ...


God dwells in a different dimension—the spirit realm—beyond the perception of our physical senses. It’s not that God isn’t real; it’s a matter of His not being limited by the physical laws and dimensions that govern our world

Read more:What is God s relationship to time


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?



I always start with the realization that since we still argue the existence of God, or non-existence of God, even after millenia, there's no winning or convincing arguement either way. 

"Don't fear answers. Fear running out of questions."


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?



If God is time, then the Bible lied or was wrong when it said God is eternal. Time is not eternal and was created during the Big Bang. Prior to that event, time didn't exist. So if God is time, then GOd didn't exist until the Big Bang created it.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


That is the Newtonian view of the universe, a body at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an outside force, but then along came Einstein's there is no such thing as a body at rest, everything is constantly being acted upon by outside forces. You, like your God, are stuck in the past.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Time, however, is constantly happening.


Time is anything but constant!


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> ...


My biggest question has always been, how was God created?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Time, however, is constantly happening.
> ...



time is relative to your position and speed 

think of time as a stack of moments piled on each other


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Apr 30, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Logicly, and using actual science, God woulda had to evolve just as we are. Humble beginnings, became what we lesser evolved beings would call a god over time. Not without precedent afterall. Much of what used to be attributed to the gods is now possible by us. Gods are still credited for making it rain, but we can do that via cloud seeding. Gods are credited with 'bringing back the dead' and medical science has evolved to the point where we can "revive" someone anicent people's woulda buried as dead no problem.


----------



## there4eyeM (Apr 30, 2015)

We are limited by linguistics.


----------



## eots (Apr 30, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> We are limited by linguistics.


----------



## BreezeWood (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> We do not perceive the present. It's physically impossible. Everything perceived is in the past.


.
to comprehend the present for eternity is the ultimate goal.

there is no dimension of time associated with the Everlasting, perception of the Everlasting can only be accomplished at the passing of the Apex of Knowledge, when allowed Admittance by the Almighty.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 30, 2015)

Most of the discussion here is at the level of philosophers thousands of years. Science knows much more about time today. People here are talking about the “instantaniousness” of time. However, time, energy and some other physical concepts always carry an uncertainty.

“_This is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things.”_
Uncertainty principle

Saying “God is time” is a personal feeling. It should not be construed has having any basis in physical reality and gives no insight into what God or time really is. Understanding time is in the realm of physics. Understanding God is in the realm of religion.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Then it doesnt matter because the thing you believe created us doesnt care, didn't create a heaven for us and there is no requirement we believe.  And when you die that's it.

If all you're saying is a god or creator must exist. OK. I dont agree but so what? What does it matter?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 30, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We do not perceive the present. It's physically impossible. Everything perceived is in the past.
> ...


Huh? The next 14 bill years after you die will be just like the first 14 before you were born.

Athiests can't imagine live without them in the future. Can they think about what it was like before they existed?

Thiesm is sad and pathetic and desperate.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 30, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



What god is it? I mean what time is it? Time is god? We already have a word for time. Its TIME. Why is every single thing religions claim a lie and yet boss type athiests know it yet they still hold on?

My buddy last night kept trying to tell me all the reasons he believes and they were all emotional.

Why do I " just gotta believe"? Lol


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Maybe Time dwells in the "spirit realm" as well? The same physical laws prohibit us from observing time in the present or future. If we can't observe it, does it really exist?


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Words are meaningless in this argument. We can have two completely different understandings regarding the meaning of a word. We're arguing physics here because math trumps words and you can't manipulate the meaning of math. You can believe A. time exists or B. time does not exist. Your faith is up to you. 

I don't know about Religions, this thread isn't about Religions. Also don't know about your buddy or atheists. What I do know is that physics demonstrates it's not possible for humans to observe time happening in the present tense. Our perceptions are of time which has passed. 

So you can see, Time becomes sort of enigmatic, like God. We must have faith that present time exists because we cannot observe it happening in the present. Or we can argue that since we can't observe it directly, it must not really exist. If you believe Time exists, then God exists.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Most of the discussion here is at the level of philosophers thousands of years. Science knows much more about time today. People here are talking about the “instantaniousness” of time. However, time, energy and some other physical concepts always carry an uncertainty.
> 
> “_This is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things.”_
> Uncertainty principle
> ...



What IS "physical reality"? Set aside your bias toward religious incarnations of God for a moment and think in terms of reality and what we perceive as reality. We cannot prove the present exists. The best we can do is observe the evidence of time which has passed. We have to rely on faith that present time exists or that a future time will exist. So is the past a part of reality?


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> My biggest question has always been, how was God created?



How is Time created? How much more is there? What is the source of Time? I love philosophical questions we can't answer, they challenge the mind and make us think. 

Where is your evidence that spiritual things require "creating?"


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Time, however, is constantly happening.
> ...



I did not say "time is constant." I said "time is constantly happening." This is also known as "the arrow of time" as it is happening in one direction. It appears to the observer time can happen faster or slower but again... we have no proof time exists in the present tense. All our perceptions are of time which has already passed.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> If God is time, then the Bible lied or was wrong when it said God is eternal. Time is not eternal and was created during the Big Bang. Prior to that event, time didn't exist. So if God is time, then GOd didn't exist until the Big Bang created it.



There is not even proof the Big Bang ever happened. It's a theory and we have evidence which seems to suggest a big bang, but we can't prove it and the laws of physics don't support "singularity" which is the ultimate beginning point in the Big Bang theory. 

I have stated that God is Time, but this is not to be construed as Time=God and God=Time. God can also be Time + random variable. Or Time could be God minus a random variable.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > If God is time, then the Bible lied or was wrong when it said God is eternal. Time is not eternal and was created during the Big Bang. Prior to that event, time didn't exist. So if God is time, then GOd didn't exist until the Big Bang created it.
> ...


So, why not just acknowledge that your personal invention of gawds are whatever you want them to be. Gawds for any occasion.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the discussion here is at the level of philosophers thousands of years. Science knows much more about time today. People here are talking about the “instantaniousness” of time. However, time, energy and some other physical concepts always carry an uncertainty.
> ...


What is physical reality? The perception of nature with our eyes and ears only gives us concepts that we sort of feel personally. That is not good enough. We have to more carefully observe nature. Today an exploration of reality requires measuring instruments of increasing complexity and sensitivity to gain knowledge of what is going on in nature.

Then we look for recurring patterns that can be codified. These are in the form of theories. The mathematics in the theories more exactly describe nature to a fine level of detail such as in quantum mechanics and relativity.

As far as time, it's the mathematics that tells us about the behavior of time. Many behaviors of time totally evade intuition. If you want some kind of faith, the faith should be that nature will follow explicit principles. In other words God is in the whole understanding of space, time, and matter, not just time. That is my view - pantheism,_ the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,_

Right, we can't prove the present exists, we can only describe it. The past only exists in memories and writings, and the future only exists in dreams. The past is not a part of reality, it is only the path that lead to the present, and may allow a vague prediction of the near future.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


If time is "constantly happening" then time is constantly in the present. But you are claiming that time is constantly in the past, that it is lagging the present. That is the concept of a block universe.





_"People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between the past,
 the present and the future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion" - 
- Albert Einstein_






However if there were a block universe, slower moving masses with slower time would disappear into the past. Of course this does not happen. Black holes with their intense gravity that bring time to a screeching halt do not disappear from our present into the past.

Admit it, physics is completely beyond you!


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Okay, so the past (or time which has passed) is no longer reality. The past only exists in memory and the future only exists in dreams. Our perception of the present is a false perception because what we perceive has already happened. So we also can't observe present time. Quite the dilemma indeed. Does Time exist?  It depends on Faith.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> If time is "constantly happening" then time is constantly in the present. But you are claiming that time is constantly in the past, that it is lagging the present. That is the concept of a block universe.



No, I did not claim time is constantly in the past. I stated (correctly) that our perception of time can only be a perception of time which has already passed. We can't observe present time any more than we can observe future time, if future time exists at all.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> What is physical reality? The perception of nature with our eyes and ears only gives us concepts that we sort of feel personally. That is not good enough. We have to more carefully observe nature.



But everything we can observe is in the past. Our perception of the present is actually the very most recent past. This is because of the speed of light. We look into the sky and see a star but we don't know if that star exists in the present, even though we see it in what we perceive as the present. We are seeing the light from thousands of years ago, it has taken that long to reach our eyes for us to observe. The star may not exist any longer, we don't know. Likewise, if you look at your reflection in the mirror, that was you a nano-second ago, not in the present. You cannot prove you exist in the present.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > If time is "constantly happening" then time is constantly in the present. But you are claiming that time is constantly in the past, that it is lagging the present. That is the concept of a block universe.
> ...


We can only observe present time, only the perception of what we observed lags. Time is only and always in the present, perception of the present lags and conception of the future precedes.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Okay, so the past (or time which has passed) is no longer reality. The past only exists in memory and the future only exists in dreams. Our perception of the present is a false perception because what we perceive has already happened. So we also can't observe present time. Quite the dilemma indeed. Does Time exist? It depends on Faith.


If you worry too much about what you think is the present you can go batty. Look at the sun and see what it was 8 min ago. Look at a star and that is as it was millions of years ago. 

If you consider the theory of relativity someone who is moving sees time differently than you. Playing with words? I don't think so. GPS satellites are in a lower gravitational field than us so time ticks slower due to general relativity. Your iPhone actually has to compensate for that time dilation or the reading would be a few feet off.

It makes me wonder if a "present" time can really be defined. It exists to us personally, but a lot of it is illusionary.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > What is physical reality? The perception of nature with our eyes and ears only gives us concepts that we sort of feel personally. That is not good enough. We have to more carefully observe nature.
> ...


LOL we both just said the same thing, while our posts crossed paths.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



But we can't observe present time, that's my point. Anything you perceive has already occurred. It took time for information to travel and your brain to register it. What you are perceiving as "present" is actually the past. It has already happened. This is not philosophy, it's physics. You cannot prove the present exists, you only have evidence to suggest it existed at one time. By the time you perceive present, the present has passed.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> It makes me wonder if a "present" time can really be defined. It exists to us personally, but a lot of it is illusionary.



Bingo! Just as God is something we cannot observe directly or prove the existence of. 

Faith is required to believe Time exists... and God.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Conceding that the past exists concedes the present exists, youre just way too juvenile minded to get why. Thats your ineptitude, not anyones but yours. 

Past only exists IF theres a present and future. Otherwise past DOESNT EVEN EXIST, because its not passed or past anything.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss has to be a troll. Theres no other way.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, you are saying that there is no present because for the present to exist it must be perceived and comprehended at the same instant it happens, which is typically moronic of you. The present is always the present no matter how long it takes an outside observer to perceive it. In fact the present always exists as the present even if no outside observer ever perceives it!!!!! The present exists as the present independently and apart from any outside observer!


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Again... maybe you are too thick to get this, but I have not claimed anything exists or doesn't exist. My argument is over what we can prove the existence of and what can't be proven because we can't observe it. 

The past will exist as the past whether or not there is a present or future. Nothing can change time that has passed. You are trying to say that if the past exists the future and present must exist and that is unsupportable with physics or logic. The past offers no evidence of a future and is only evidence that a present happened and is no longer present. Does the present still exist? We can't know this, it's not physically possible. The best we can do is perceive the most recent past and assume the present existed to produce it. This requires our faith.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

The past offers the presence of a future merely by referring to is as "past."

Wow.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Also, it takes no faith to prove something exists that is scientifically calculable and measurable.

Present is a proven, no faith required.

And we actually do percieve the present - we percieve it through its calculation as brought to us by proven physics.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> No, you are saying that there is no present because for the present to exist it must be perceived and comprehended at the same instant it happens, which is typically moronic of you. The present is always the present no matter how long it takes an outside observer to perceive it. In fact the present always exists as the present even if no outside observer ever perceives it!!!!! The present exists as the present independently and apart from any outside observer!



You're doing the same thing as G.T. and distorting what has been said by me. I didn't say there is no present. I said we cannot observe the present. You can SAY the present exists... you can't PROVE it. This is called "Faith."


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are saying that there is no present because for the present to exist it must be perceived and comprehended at the same instant it happens, which is typically moronic of you. The present is always the present no matter how long it takes an outside observer to perceive it. In fact the present always exists as the present even if no outside observer ever perceives it!!!!! The present exists as the present independently and apart from any outside observer!
> ...


No, actually it is proven.

By physics.

You lose.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> The past offers the presence of a future merely by referring to is as "past."
> 
> Wow.



This is nonsense. The past does not offer any presence of present or future. It is the past.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

The past is all we percieve =/= the past is all thats proven.

Plus we percieve the present and future through their calculable given.

Strawman.

Bad baby bad babuly, horrendous logic.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The past offers the presence of a future merely by referring to is as "past."
> ...


Past when?

Idiot.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well, no... it's simply not. 

You can sit here and fire back baseless retorts all you like. 

Physics says it's impossible for you to observe the present or future. Your perception, by the laws of physics, is a perception of the past.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The present and future is percieved THROUGH physics.

No faith required.

And again, perception of the past? Past when?


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> The past is all we percieve =/= the past is all thats proven.
> 
> Plus we percieve the present and future through their calculable given.
> 
> ...



No, we don't "perceive" through a calculation. A calculation is a prediction.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> The present and future is percieved THROUGH physics.



No, it's not.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Past the present. Idiot.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Oh. So the past can be proven.

And its past the present.

But the present isnt thus proven?

And we are the idiots?

You need a drool cup and a bib pronto.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The past offers the presence of a future merely by referring to is as "past."
> ...


Prove there is a past without a now!


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > It makes me wonder if a "present" time can really be defined. It exists to us personally, but a lot of it is illusionary.
> ...


Well, that is a rather bold logical leap, but I really don't know what you are trying to prove. If you are trying to prove God is Time, the fact that we can't observe or prove either doesn't lead to a syllogism. 
We can't prove unicorns exist. We cant prove time exists, therefore unicorns are time.

Or faith in x and faith in y doesn't mean x = y.

Of course you are free to make God = time your working ethos, but you haven't demonstrated it rigorously.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Oh. So the past can be proven.
> 
> And its past the present.
> 
> ...



We can observe the past, it's all we can observe. 

Proof is whenever observable and testable evidence has convinced you of truth. 

To "prove" something, you have to be able to observe it. Otherwise, you have a speculation, a theory, an opinion... faith in a belief. 

What we observe in the past, what has happened in time, is all we can perceive as humans. We can't experience the universe and time in present tense. I believe this is where God resides. What we perceive has already happened. We don't know if there will be a future. We can't see or observe the present. ...The speed of light as it were.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Prove there is a past without a now!


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

This is so much stupidity it hurts. From belly laughter. 

Youre trolling Boss. Quite obviously.

You shoulda posted this in the flame zone, NOT religion.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



There is no logical leap and I'm not attempting to prove something here. This is a philosophical thread to discuss an idea and thoughts. The point is to demonstrate that our spiritual awareness of God is evidenced through the same faith we have in Time.

We are not spiritually aware of unicorns as far as I know. I guess if unicorns had always inspired man to be more than he can be, we might be discussing them here. We are also not discussing Jesus or Moses or The Bible in general. Only a conceptual God which can basically be the same as Time. Something we are aware of even without the ability to perceive it directly or physically prove it exists.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> This is so much stupidity it hurts. From belly laughter.
> 
> Youre trolling Boss. Quite obviously.
> 
> You shoulda posted this in the flame zone, NOT religion.



And so now we've devolved into full-blown denigration and insult, as usual. 

By the way... You are really one of the easiest people here to defeat in the arena of debate. Your thoughts and ideas are so simplistically childish and your beliefs can be totally baseless. When this is pointed out to you, the reaction is always the same. You begin to hurl insults and start denigrating. This little temper tantrum rages on while you pine for your buddies to help you save face... it's really pathetic to watch as an observer. Just thought you should know.


----------



## G.T. (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > This is so much stupidity it hurts. From belly laughter.
> ...


You are barely above stephanie in intelligence bro, dont worry i dont take your observations to heart.

All one needs to do to see your inept train of thought is refer to this epic fail of a fuckin thread.

Thumbs up, heathen.

Youre so insecure about your fucking god your brain has taken 45 different fucking angles now to try and convince yourself its true.

Its kind of pathetic, but half enjoyable tbh.


----------



## edthecynic (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Prove there is a past without a now!


I knew you couldn't do it.


----------



## BreezeWood (Apr 30, 2015)

.

relegating the Almighty to pretentious argumentation is nothing more than blatant Spiritual bankruptcy ...

* Times-up.

.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

Anyone else ready to confirm you're through debating?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



you can witness now over and over again in a series moments


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The past offers the presence of a future merely by referring to is as "past."
> ...



the past present and future all exist together


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



What is your evidence future exists? 
How can you confirm the present exists if you cannot observe it? 

The past exists as memories, we label them as days, weeks, years, decades, centuries... the evidence for this is reality of a physical nature. So time is certainly passing and we have evidence time is passing. We simply can't see the moment of present time and we don't know how much future time remains, or even if there is any. This requires faith.


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> What is your evidence future exists?


I'll do a Bossy:


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> we don't know how much *future time remains*, or even if there is any. This requires faith.


I predict with certainty and not by faith that there will be a tomorrow even if I am not here to witness it. You have subconsciously admitted it.


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> we don't know how much future time remains, or even if there is any. This requires faith.


We know at present that there is a future even if we are not certain of how long that future is. It is not faith, but the physics of an expanding universe in motion. Motion = time.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > we don't know how much *future time remains*, or even if there is any. This requires faith.
> ...



You can predict whatever you like. You can't prove.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> We know at present that there is a future even if we are not certain of how long that future is.



No we don't. We can't even verify the present exists. We only have evidence of time which has passed.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > What is your evidence future exists?
> ...



Well... Calenders exist. I don't deny that. 

The future dates on the calender represent time that has yet to arrive. 

Does it exist?

 Where is you proof?


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your post following my previous post is proof.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



LOL... The past? What does that have to do  with tomorrow?


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > We know at present that there is a future even if we are not certain of how long that future is.
> ...


Wrong!
We have proof of an expanding universe and therefore proof of future time of indeterminate length.
For you to claim there is no future you must prove that the present movement of the universe will stop immediately.


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your past post was the future to my previous post.
You lose your argument with each future post!


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



We have no "proof" of ANYTHING that we cannot observe, test, measure or evaluate! You can't prove the universe even exists in the present. You can predict the universe exists in the present and will continue to exist into the future, you just can't prove this.  I welcome you to try and present something, but really... there's not anything you can present. The laws of physics defy you.


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> The laws of physics defy you.


You lie, as always.


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > What is your evidence future exists?
> ...




--LOL


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



try out a telescope some time


----------



## amrchaos (May 1, 2015)

I've said this numerous of times(pun intended)

There are definitions for "God" that not only can't be disproven, but are scientifically provable.

Time is a measurement.  Measuring time, rates of change, age of objects tends to justify the existence of time in a science.

(this kind of remind me of someone that God is love and energy.  Energy is a physical concept. Love is an emotional state of mind that is expressed in action but difficult to prove in others, but is knowable if you experienced it.)

The real question here is-do you accept this definition for God?

Many non-theistic definitions of God does not need the title of "God" since their importance are obvious by noticing them as they are(if they exist). To me, calling these things 'God' tends to  obfuscate their importance to us. 

Time, Energy, Love are important to our reality and perception of reality--but calling any of these things "God" is unnecessary.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > What is physical reality? The perception of nature with our eyes and ears only gives us concepts that we sort of feel personally. That is not good enough. We have to more carefully observe nature.
> ...



I'll give ya props for your willingness to engage and respond to seemingly every poster.


----------



## Wuwei (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> There is no logical leap and I'm not attempting to prove something here. This is a philosophical thread to discuss an idea and thoughts. The point is to demonstrate that our spiritual awareness of God is evidenced through the same faith we have in Time.
> 
> We are not spiritually aware of unicorns as far as I know. I guess if unicorns had always inspired man to be more than he can be, we might be discussing them here. We are also not discussing Jesus or Moses or The Bible in general. Only a conceptual God which can basically be the same as Time. Something we are aware of even without the ability to perceive it directly or physically prove it exists.



That's fair enough. A lot of people want to relate God intimately with some aspect of physics, such as the cause of the big bang. One friend relates God as behind every physical interaction or movement of matter - similar in one sense to your point.

That is fine, but it leaves me with a sort of a "so what". The physical aspects of the universe are what they are and labeling some or all of them as God doesn't add much to the philosophy. 

What adds to the philosophy is that same entity is something that you pray to, and something that is personally interested in you. There is no reason to make that leap, and you seem not to be doing that. So that begs the question, what is the significance of your philosophy.


----------



## Wuwei (May 1, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> I've said this numerous of times(pun intended)
> 
> There are definitions for "God" that not only can't be disproven, but are scientifically provable.
> 
> ...


I didn't see your post before I posted. It's is interesting that we said pretty much the same thing..


----------



## BreezeWood (May 1, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> What adds to the philosophy is that same entity is something that you pray to, and something that is personally interested in you. There is no reason to make that leap, and you seem not to be doing that. So that begs the question, what is the significance of your philosophy.


.
in the case of the OP - " The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. " - is a resignation to a personal goal of self gratification.

.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



A telescope? So I can see _*further*_ into the past?


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > What adds to the philosophy is that same entity is something that you pray to, and something that is personally interested in you. There is no reason to make that leap, and you seem not to be doing that. So that begs the question, what is the significance of your philosophy.
> ...



No, it's not a resignation to anything except the facts of physics. We cannot perceive the present, therefore we do not observe the present and cannot prove it exists. We have faith it exists because of the evidence left behind.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> I've said this numerous of times(pun intended)
> 
> There are definitions for "God" that not only can't be disproven, but are scientifically provable.
> 
> ...



"God" is a harmless little three-letter word, it won't hurt you. You see, what has happened here is a sort of brainwashing. The mere mention of the word "God" sets people off, They begin to get defensive and unreasonable. It's just a word. 

You mentioned energy and love but neither can exist without Time. Ultimately, everything in our reality depends on Time. The thing about Time is, we are only able to observe the after effect of Time. It is physically impossible for us to observe the present. So... either the present doesn't exist or it's something we can't directly confirm with physical evidence. We have faith based on the evidence of our perceptions of the past. 

Imagine you are driving a car down the road but you can only see out the back window. Looking back on where you have been, you can perceive that you're traveling down the road. You don't know where you are at on the road until you see the road you just traveled across  disappearing behind you. We don't know where we are or where we're going, only where we've been.


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> We cannot perceive the present, therefore we do not observe the present and cannot prove it exists.* We have faith *it exists because of the evidence left behind.


The only faith you have is that you can lie about anything.


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > I've said this numerous of times(pun intended)
> ...


It is only YOU who has no experience of the present. YOU have convinced yourself that everyone is as blind as you.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> The only faith you have is that you can lie about anything.



 Your statement makes no sense. 



edthecynic said:


> It is only YOU who has no experience of the present. YOU have convinced yourself that everyone is as blind as you.



No, physics is apparently not your strong suit. Anything you experience through your five senses has already happened. You are experiencing the after effect. Unless you are God and you can defy physics, this is the case. Now, I realize that many of you Atheist types see yourselves as God, but really... you can't defy physics in order to win this argument.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 1, 2015)

How can anyone seriously state that what we _are experiencing_ is in the past? At the most, we might argue that the information being processed comes from the past, but that would be essentially meaningless.


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> No, physics is apparently not your strong suit.


Says the idiot who claims a foot depends on time.


Boss said:


> *Distance* and motion are *meaningless without time*.


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Anything you experience through your five senses *has already happened*.


In the PRESENT.


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



or the future 

funny how motion slices the present 

one persons past may be another persons future


----------



## BreezeWood (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


.



> No, it's not a resignation ... to anything except the facts of physics




yes, it is a resignation on your part, the Admission to the Everlasting, accomplishing the " present " through the Apex of Knowledge available to all beings willing to accept the challenge -

you simply have given up ... using the excuse of Physics, science and a preference for a cushioned existence.


and you refer to yourself as a Spiritualist .... ???

.


----------



## Boss (May 1, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> How can anyone seriously state that what we _are experiencing_ is in the past? At the most, we might argue that the information being processed comes from the past, but that would be essentially meaningless.



Well it's simply physics. You understand light travels, right? So when you "see" something, that is something that existed in the past. The light has reflected off of it and travels to your eye, then your eye sends a signal to your brain and you realize it. By the time all of that happens, whatever you are seeing is in the past. The time has already moved forward and what you are seeing is a reflection from the past. 

The same holds true with your other senses as well, it takes time for anything you sense to travel to your brain and register as an experience. It's not physically possible for you to "see" the present or sense the present in any way. In order to believe the present exists, it requires faith. Not much, because your evidence from time passed is very fresh and confirms that a present did exist just a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. Still, since you cannot actually observe it, you can't prove it.... like God.


----------



## edthecynic (May 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > How can anyone seriously state that what we _are experiencing_ is in the past? At the most, we might argue that the information being processed comes from the past, but that would be essentially meaningless.
> ...


No, it is simple sophistry!

No that is something that exists in the PRESENT. Time may pass by the time the present registers in your brain, but the event still happened in the present. There can be no past without a present first, therefore the past is proof of the existence of a present. Your response after this post is proof of a future.


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



*No, it is simple sophistry!*

Funny name for Physics.

*No that is something that exists in the PRESENT.*

I hear you saying it, I don't see you proving it. 

*Time may pass by the time the present registers in your brain, but the event still happened in the present.*

How do you know if we can't observe the present? I admit, our perception does suggest a present existed and the result is now the past. But if we cannot observe the present, we can't scientifically examine it to test and evaluate. We rely on faith in the evidence that our perception, which is of the past, confirms a present. 

*There can be no past without a present first, therefore the past is proof of the existence of a present.*

Okay, so when I say there can be no life or universe without a Creator first, therefore life and the universe is proof of the existence of a Creator...  How is that any different? 

It's physically impossible for humans to perceive the present. The past may be "evidence" there was a present at one time and now it is passed, but you can't observe or evaluate the present to prove it. You must have faith that your "evidence" is valid proof. 

I'm not arguing that it's not, just saying you can't prove it and you must have faith... like God.


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Your response after this post is proof of a future.



Wow... Look at me, I am in the future! Except, no... I'm NOT!  This response is in the past, just like your post was in the past before you could post it. This is easy because humans can only perceive the past.


----------



## edthecynic (May 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > *Your response after this post is proof of a future*.
> ...


Thank you for proving the existence of the future.


----------



## edthecynic (May 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nothing you post is even remotely related to physics.

Physics to date has not reconciled Relative time with Quantum time. Physics has made no progress in uncovering the nature of time itself or why it seems different (both perceptually and in the equations of quantum mechanics) than the three dimensions of space, which is one of the greatest unknowns in physics.

Quantum Time Exactly What Is Time


----------



## TheOldSchool (May 2, 2015)




----------



## there4eyeM (May 2, 2015)

...and time is money, so God is...

Well, when I was fifteen a man did explain to me that God was money. Young and impressionable though I was, this I did not at all accept.


----------



## Boss (May 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Oh, okay... So your argument against man relying on faith to believe in reality is to show me how there are other things man relies on faith to believe. Brilliant!


----------



## Muslim75 (May 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?


 
Rather than being time, God is "The Time", as taught in Islam. As an instance, look at wold communication in 1995 (before intenet), then look at it in 2015 (after internet and everything it brought), then realize the meaning of God is The Time.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 2, 2015)

Muslim75 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> ...


 .


> Rather than being time, God is "The Time"




apples and oranges, there is no Time relative to the Everlasting ...  muslim.

.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 2, 2015)

One's perception of God can only be personal. It doesn't have to, and may not be possible to, be the same for anyone else. Insisting that it be the same for others is an insult to them and to God. It also qualifies as mentally ill, since the delusion that one is supremely right is a sure sign.


----------



## edthecynic (May 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, I'm showing you that your phony argument which you pretend is from the "authority" of physics is pure bullshit and has absolutely nothing to do with physics. But you knew that already which is why you created a Straw Man rather than admit the truth, like a typical Far Right extremist.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I don't know about "authority" of physics, it is what it is. There is no straw man, you can't observe the present according to physics. What you experience as present is actually past, and physics proves this. You can't "unprove" physics, so you are floundering around calling me names and acting like a twat. 

Just like we have faith in God, we have faith there is a present time. We cannot observe it, there is no physical way to verify it, all we have is the resulting evidence to support our faith. We presume there was a present because there is a past.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> One's perception of God can only be personal. It doesn't have to, and may not be possible to, be the same for anyone else. Insisting that it be the same for others is an insult to them and to God. It also qualifies as mentally ill, since the delusion that one is supremely right is a sure sign.



Let me be clear, I am not insisting anyone believe in the same God or that anyone has to believe in a God at all. I am simply arguing, as God requires our faith, so does the presence of the present. I've demonstrated that what we perceive as present is actually in the past. Based on our perception of the past, we trust there was a present, we just can't observe it.


----------



## theword (May 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?



Does time exist


Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?



Time is something only perceived by an observer if he is aware of it as being time. A good example of this is when you're in a hurry to be somewhere at a planned time in the future. As you're rushing to your appointment while walking on a sidewalk, you come to an intersection with traffic lights. You miss the green light and have to wait until the light turns green again. You look at your watch to see how slowly the second hand is moving. It appears that the light will never turn green again but eventually it does. When you finally get across to the other side of the street, you run into an old friend who gets you involved in a conversation. After an hour goes by, you get a thought in your mind to look at your watch to see what time it is. You learn that it's been an hour but it seems like only a few minutes have gone by. Now you realize you're way late for your appointment and have to make a call to explain why you're late. With this analogy, it's easy to see how time is only an illusion that's perceived to be real by an observe but only when he thinks of time passing by.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

theword said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> ...



*Time is something only perceived by an observer if he is aware of it as being time. *

If this is true, then in your analogy, you should be able to perceive that you are on time even though you're not. Of course we know this is not so. Regardless of your observations, awareness and perception, time still passes by. 

Time is not an illusion. Our perception of time is an illusion, specifically our perception of the present. We only have perception of time after it has passed. We can't perceive the present because of physics. What we perceive as present is already in the past. 

Here's a little different analogy... You can say you watched the Super Bowl live when it happened on your TV. But you actually didn't see it live. What you saw on television was several seconds delayed and was no longer "live" as in the present. If you were in the stadium, you can also say you saw the game live as it happened, but again... you didn't. You saw the reflection of light frequency bouncing off objects and traveling to your eyes where the image is transmitted to your brain and registered as something you saw. By the time this all takes place, what you see is already in the past. The point of this analogy is, we can have different perception of the same thing and both perceptions can be inaccurate.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 4, 2015)

When is one thinking when one is thinking now?


----------



## edthecynic (May 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> physics proves this. You can't "unprove" physics


Repeating your lie as coming from "physics" does not make it any less of a lie. Please link to a physics text book that clearly states your lie.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 4, 2015)

Consciousness is now.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 4, 2015)

.






there is no physio-neurological perception of time for over 99% of the species on Earth both fauna and flora, once again the neo-psudo religiosity exhibits its profound detachment from the true nature and understanding of sustainable life in our universe.

.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > physics proves this. You can't "unprove" physics
> ...



You can look in any physics textbook and find the speed of light. We can't observe things immediately in the present. Light has to travel to our eyes. Unless you can show me a physics book that denies this, it stands as valid physics and I don't need to link you to it. If you want to play stupid, that's fine with me... you do it very well.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Consciousness is now.



Nothing perceptible by humans is now.  You can get as hippy-dippy as you like, but humans can't see the present. It defies physics.


----------



## Moonglow (May 4, 2015)

There's a moment coming,,it's not here yet, but it, oh shit, there it goes...


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> There's a moment coming,,it's not here yet, but it, oh shit, there it goes...



Yep... and... *No matter where you go, there you are!*


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

Okay, let's slide back to my Super Bowl example above... everyone gets this... you know that watching it on television is not the same perception of present as watching it live in the stadium.  Our perception of 'present' can be many seconds delayed due to technology... but not just technology, physics as well.

You are in the stadium watching the game from the nosebleed section. Is your perception of "the present time" the same as someone standing on the sideline? Light has to travel further to you than the person on the sideline, so their perception of "the present" is not happening at the same time as yours.  Physics has 'delayed the broadcast' of present reality. In fact, even the person on the sideline is not seeing "the present" because no one can, it's physically not possible.


----------



## theword (May 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



There are no objects out there to be seen. Everything we observe is an illusion such as time, space, and matter. Scientists will remain confused by what they think they observe before this first age ends.

When you body dies, you will instantly wake up in two new bodies in the next age, ready to start experiencing life but in the next age, we won't understand what time means. That's because we won't be seeing any darkness or build watches. We won't have any memories of the first age because all the information of the first age will have been deleted from the virtual program we're in. Since time won't exist in our new high frequency spoken language that we will all learn in Paradise, we won't be talking about it.


----------



## theword (May 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Okay, let's slide back to my Super Bowl example above... everyone gets this... you know that watching it on television is not the same perception of present as watching it live in the stadium.  Our perception of 'present' can be many seconds delayed due to technology... but not just technology, physics as well.
> 
> You are in the stadium watching the game from the nosebleed section. Is your perception of "the present time" the same as someone standing on the sideline? Light has to travel further to you than the person on the sideline, so their perception of "the present" is not happening at the same time as yours.  Physics has 'delayed the broadcast' of present reality. In fact, even the person on the sideline is not seeing "the present" because no one can, it's physically not possible.



What makes you believe physicists are correct in their theories about light?


----------



## theword (May 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > One's perception of God can only be personal. It doesn't have to, and may not be possible to, be the same for anyone else. Insisting that it be the same for others is an insult to them and to God. It also qualifies as mentally ill, since the delusion that one is supremely right is a sure sign.
> ...



All we will ever observe is one picture at a time being processed at a rate that makes objects appear to move. This means we can never observe the future or the past at the same moment we're observing the present picture. This doesn't mean that God can't give us pictures of the future or the past but while He's having us observe pictures of the future or past, we cannot observe the present.


----------



## edthecynic (May 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So you have no physics textbook reference to back your contention that there is no present time because light, WHICH EXISTS IN THE PRESENT, takes an interval of time to reach our eye.
Thank you.
This begs the question, does time exist in the dark? If it does than the speed of light striking our eye is as meaningless to the present as everything you post.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

theword said:


> What makes you believe physicists are correct in their theories about light?



I am someone who understands science is the study and examination of possibilities. It doesn't draw conclusions. That is something done by man. The greatest scientists we know were people who challenged what physics and science collectively assumed to be correct. Science marches on, it doesn't satisfy a need to 'prove' something. Again, man does that. 

Science has measured the speed of light. This isn't a theory, it's a physical fact that light travels at 186,282 miles per second. It's a biological fact that our eyes perceive the reflection of light which has traveled there. These are unquestionable facts that haven't been challenged. The thing about light is... do we mean a particle, photon, wave, frequency, energy? What exactly IS light? 

You could say God is Light as well as Time. Light, Time and Matter (96% of the dark variety we can't comprehend) are what comprise our entire reality. What IS the present? We cannot observe it... we cannot test or evaluate it. Our senses rely on time passing for us to perceive anything. We rely on faith that the present happened because the past seems to indicate this.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

theword said:


> All we will ever observe is one picture at a time being processed at a rate that makes objects appear to move. This means we can never observe the future or the past at the same moment we're observing the present picture. This doesn't mean that God can't give us pictures of the future or the past but while He's having us observe pictures of the future or past, we cannot observe the present.



You are still missing the point. We're not observing the present picture... ever. We can't. It's not physically possible for us to observe what happens in the present. All our perceptions are reliant upon our senses which rely upon time passing. Everything you perceive has already happened and is in the past. We have all kinds of memories of the past, and we can even speculate about the future... we can't see the future and we can't see the present. Only the past.


----------



## edthecynic (May 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> No matter where you go, there you are!


"If you get to it, and you can't do it. There you JOLLY WELL are, aren't you" is the correct quote.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> *your contention that there is no present time*



I never contended any such thing, you need to read again.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > No matter where you go, there you are!
> ...




LOL.. .WRONG again!


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

theword said:


> When you body dies, you will instantly wake up in two new bodies



What do you mean by "you" and what is "wake up" to the subject of your 'youness'? Your physical body is dead, it doesn't live on. Why would this "you" need another body...OR TWO? Kinda creepy sounding to me. 

We can get into all kinds of wild speculations about afterlife, but this thread isn't really about opinions on what you think happens after you die. I don't know the answer and no one does. Even those who believe in God and think they are going to heaven, don't know... they're not going to *know* until they die. They have faith and it's okay for humans to have faith, we rely on faith in order to perceive reality.


----------



## theword (May 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I don't need any physics books to understand what our Creator has directly taught me.

Everything man perceives with his senses is an illusion that isn't real at all. Think of created man as information ( processor ) that is used to process other information into information he can understand. Similar in the way a computer works.

Computer binary code is a way to take thoughts ( invisible information in the form of waves, or vibrations ) from the mind and process them into other information through a computer processor such as sound, visible objects on a computer screen, visible movements of robots, printed language, artwork, etc.  

Our Creator created each being as information ( waves ), much like a computer processor. Think of each created being as a computer linked to all of God's stored thoughts as invisible waves, which is His computing language. Each created being experiences batches of processed waves at a rate that gives the being the sense of being alive in a body. An analogy of this would be like playing a simulated computer game where you're looking out from a body. Think of the body as your body that you wake up in this world with. All you can do is experience your body moving about according to God's program called Eternal Life. The thoughts you're getting in your mind might not have anything do with what your body is doing because it's not always connected with what you're thinking about.

If you were birthed into this world with a dysfunctional body that can't move on it's own, you could still think of moving about in this world in a different body as long as you can observe other bodies moving about and picture that motion in your mind. This proves that your spirit ( thoughts, or information ) has nothing to do with the illusion called a body.


----------



## edthecynic (May 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > *your contention that there is no present time*
> ...


You are completely in the dark!


----------



## theword (May 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > When you body dies, you will instantly wake up in two new bodies
> ...



Did you know that many of the prophecies of the Old Testament contains bits of information about how we'll experience life in the New Heaven and Earth?

Did you know that God has one last saint in this world that He is using to testify to His knowledge about the past, present and future?


----------



## edthecynic (May 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > All we will ever observe is one picture at a time being processed at a rate that makes objects appear to move. This means we can never observe the future or the past at the same moment we're observing the present picture. This doesn't mean that God can't give us pictures of the future or the past but while He's having us observe pictures of the future or past, we cannot observe the present.
> ...


Again, it is moronic to require "SEEING" the present for the present to exist. The present exists for the blind, like you, as well as the sighted. The blind do not need faith or sight to be aware of the present.


----------



## theword (May 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > What makes you believe physicists are correct in their theories about light?
> ...



Science isn't the study and examination of possibilities. It wasn't until physicists discovered that particles act as waves that gave them the idea that possibilities exist. Most physicists believed that everything was determined before they learned that particles couldn't be determined to be where they thought they thought should be in their double slit tests.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > theword said:
> ...



Eddy boy, please stop trying to twist my words around on me. I am not going to ever let you get away with doing it and it's really annoying. I have NEVER EVER said that the present does not exist. I have said that we cannot observe the present. Proving that things CAN exist that we can't observe. Like God.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

theword said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > theword said:
> ...



I am very familiar with the double slit experiment, that's why I posited the question of what we mean by "light" ..a particle, photon, wave? What IS light? What IS gravity? None of this really relates to my argument about human perception of the present and the fact that we don't observe the present, only the past.


----------



## Boss (May 4, 2015)

theword said:


> Science isn't the study and examination of possibilities.



Well that's exactly what Science is and if you can't comprehend that, we can't have a discussion in Science because you're not literate in Science or the Scientific Method. 

Science is a never-ending quest for answers to questions. It does not draw conclusions, that is left to man and once you've drawn a conclusion, the work of science is done, you've abandoned science for a faith in your conclusion. Science can do nothing with a conclusion.


----------



## edthecynic (May 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> [I have NEVER EVER said that the present does not exist. I have said that we cannot observe the present. Proving that *things* CAN exist that we can't observe. Like God.


But it is not necessary to observe the present to prove it exists.On the other hand, unlike the present, there is no proof that a God or Gods exist.
And time is not a "thing." It is a duration or interval.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Consciousness is now.
> ...


Even accepted that the present cannot be seen (i.e.; the stimulus comes from a past event (although how would the perceiver know that and how could it be proved?)), that occurrence, the image arriving in the brain, arrives 'now'.
'Dippy' seems to me to maintain as fact something that is not established anywhere else, but is merely a matter of contention.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > [I have NEVER EVER said that the present does not exist. I have said that we cannot observe the present. Proving that *things* CAN exist that we can't observe. Like God.
> ...



Duration and interval are simply other words describing time.

How can you prove the present exists without observing it? How do you know the present isn't created by God? Unless you can test and observe the present you can't scientifically establish anything. You have evidence to support your faith in the present, and I have evidence to support my faith in God.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



Well the 'perceiver' has to first understand physics. Then they understand the light which has created an image in their mind has traveled there over the duration of time, their optic nerve has sent signals to the brain, also taking time, and the brain cells recognize the signals as something being visualized and determine what to perceive, which also takes time. What you are perceiving as "now" happened already and is in the past before your brain can even register it. Our perception is only of the past, we cannot observe the present, it's a matter of physics.


----------



## theword (May 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > theword said:
> ...



Blind people have other senses to experience life with so of course they know what the "present" means. We can only observe the present picture. Each picture we observe comes to us at a rate so fast that it's impossible to know we're only observing once picture at a time. Camera's are able to stop that present picture for us but we will never be able to see that one picture again unless our Creator has given you a picture of the future to observe. As you're observing that future picture that our Creator is having you observe, you cannot observe the present picture or past pictures.


----------



## theword (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



We can only observe the present unless our Creator gives us a picture of the past or future to observe, which I have experienced many times. I know what you're trying to say but if you can't observe the present picture, than it's impossible to see anything. Motion and time only exists as we observe the present picture but at a fast enough rate to make objects look like there in motion. Each picture we observe is nothing more than a processed batch of waves that form into particles as we observe them. Once we're not observing those particles, they are nothing but waves. This means these particles collapse into waves. This is how God created everything visible and invisible but only as waves that turn into visible objects when observed.


----------



## theword (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > Science isn't the study and examination of possibilities.
> ...



Science came about because of questions that are formed in a man's mind according to our Creator's program called Eternal Life. Our Creator is the one who has taught man everything he needs to know to move about in this world. Mathematics was given to man to measure the visible objects to not only build objects with their hands but also to end up learning that these objects are not real at all. So our Creator has led scientists to His mind ( thoughts converted into invisible waves ), which is a computing language where everything visible and invisible is processed from to give man a world to experience.

Now scientists can understand the infinite possible objects that can be formed from this computing language. So before this awareness of infinity ( possibilities ) man was only looking for determined objects that could explain what they were observing. Now we know that these visible objects are illusive, meaning they aren't real objects made of determined hard physical evidence such as real particles.


----------



## theword (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



God doesn't need physics to explain that everything we observe are only illusions. He can use visions and analogies like He used to teach me that particles are only illusions.


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 5, 2015)

time will always be in the present for the observer 

however it may be anothers past present or future 

even weirder is that can work both ways 

--LOL


----------



## edthecynic (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> How can you prove the present exists without observing it?


Something you will never understand, "logic." Even YOU can't deny that the present exists!


----------



## edthecynic (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> the light which has created an image in their mind has traveled there over the duration of time,


You are still completely in the dark.
The present exists even in the dark, that's physics.


----------



## theword (May 5, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> time will always be in the present for the observer
> 
> however it may be anothers past present or future
> 
> ...


That's because time isn't something real. It can only be observed such as the dream I experienced as a five year old kid about the future killing of my body. I have no idea when that moment will occur but I do know it will happen according to God's plan.

God has also given me visions of how He created the earth in the past and destroys it in the future. He taught me that everything we observe is only an illusion so it's not hard to believe these visions.  

It's the future experiences in the New Heaven and Earth that our Creator has revealed to me that gets me excited. He has shown me the infinite possibilities of illusions that we will observe that will keep us from being bored. In fact, we will experience life in many different kinds of bodies so it will be impossible for us to get bored.


----------



## theword (May 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > the light which has created an image in their mind has traveled there over the duration of time,
> ...



The past, present and future are always in the dark until light information co-exists with the rest of the observable information that's processed into what we perceive to be real,  whether it's in the past, present or future. We can simulate light going on and off in computer programs by simply adding or deleting information to the existing information that forms objects.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

theword said:


> Blind people have other senses to experience life with so of course they know what the "present" means. We can only observe the present picture. Each picture we observe comes to us at a rate so fast that it's impossible to know we're only observing once picture at a time. Camera's are able to stop that present picture for us but we will never be able to see that one picture again unless our Creator has given you a picture of the future to observe. As you're observing that future picture that our Creator is having you observe, you cannot observe the present picture or past pictures.



Blind people can't observe anything, they are blind. 

I never said we don't have an "experience" ...that's kinda stupid. 

I fully understand your explanation of time as "slices" or "pictures" but you're still not understanding the point... you can't observe the "present picture" because it's not physically possible. Even if you say it over and over again like Dorothy in Wizard of Oz, you can never observe present time. The "frame" you are perceiving as "current" is already in the past, before your brain can even register that you've observed something. We cannot observe the present because of physics. 

Now... If we cannot observe something, we can't evaluate or test it scientifically. It's the same with God. We can have FAITH, but that's not scientific. We literally rely on faith to perceive a present which is actually the past. Humans can only actually observe things which have already happened. It's basic Physics 101.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

theword said:


> I know what you're trying to say but if you can't observe the present picture, than it's impossible to see anything. Motion and time only exists as we observe the present picture but at a fast enough rate to make objects look like there in motion.



You clearly don't know what I am saying because you keep trying to contradict it without any basis of understanding. You can't observe the present because it's not physically possible. It is physically impossible to "see" the present. Doesn't matter about motion and time or rates and frequency, you cannot see light until it travels to your eye. We do not observe "the present" because it's not possible. Everything we observe is in the past.


----------



## edthecynic (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> We cannot observe the present because of physics.


You do not have to observe the present to be aware of the present, and awareness is not faith.
Like everything you post, you pontificate without proof and then you play word games claiming absolute authority over the meaning of everything.


----------



## edthecynic (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> you cannot see light until it travels to your eye


The present does not require light to exist, so your rationalization is meaningless as well as stupid.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We cannot observe the present because of physics.
> ...



This is incorrect. Everything you are aware of but can't observe, test and evaluate, cannot be supported by physical science and must rely on faith. I am keenly aware of God... I can't observe, test or evaluate God physically, it requires faith.


----------



## G.T. (May 5, 2015)

Except the present can be tested and evaluated, and also measured by science. 

Time is linear, the past proves the present proves the future.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > you cannot see light until it travels to your eye
> ...



Somehow you brain is still stuck on something I did not say. I've not claimed that "present time" doesn't exist. I've correctly stated that we cannot observe present time because it's not physically possible. And you've not refuted this.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Except the present can be tested and evaluated, and also measured by science.
> 
> Time is linear, the past proves the present proves the future.



Except.. *No it can't.* It's physically *impossible*. Whatever you are evaluating, testing or measuring, has already become part of the past and is no longer in the present.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Time is linear, the past proves the present proves the future.



Time is NOT linear, Time is relative. The past proves the past, that is all it can prove.  "_A_ proves _B_ proves _C_" is quite simply an example of circular reasoning.


----------



## G.T. (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Except the present can be tested and evaluated, and also measured by science.
> ...


Actually, it can and is. You simply dont understand.

Past present and future are all proven concepts. Not a single one of them requires faith.


----------



## G.T. (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Time is linear, the past proves the present proves the future.
> ...


Youre naming points on the line admitting theres a line but not admitting the points.

What youre doing is being retarded or daft on purpose.

Either way, past present and future - no faith required.


----------



## G.T. (May 5, 2015)

Once the concept of time was proven, past present and future were all proven.

Boss little ramblings of faith not required. Science. Thats it.


----------



## edthecynic (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> I've not claimed that "present time" doesn't exist. I've correctly stated that we cannot observe present time because it's not physically possible.


No, you said that since you can't observe the present with your eyeball, the existence of the present requires faith. That is pure bullshit, as you well know. LOGIC, not faith and not your eyeball, dictates that the present exists.
Of course, since you are NOT logical YOU can never be aware of the present.


----------



## edthecynic (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Time is linear, the past proves the present proves the future.
> ...


In the past I proved the future when I said you would post after my post, and you did. Therefore the very past record of this very thread proves the existence of the future.


----------



## G.T. (May 5, 2015)

Not to mwntion we can observe the present by touching a nerve end of the brain. Takes zero time for the signal to travel because the signal and the source occupy the same space.


----------



## edthecynic (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Time is relative


In physics, quantum time is not relative. Therefore physics contradicts you.


----------



## G.T. (May 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Time is relative
> ...


He is wrong, anyway.

Time is linear 

Perception of time is whats relative. 


Hes sincerely an actor who enjoys playing fake smart but he shows his ass way too much.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Concepts are concepts. God is also a proven concept. 

The only thing you have any physically observable 'proof' of is time passed. 

No one can observe the present, therefore it cannot be scientifically evaluated. The instant which is the present, is not observable to us because physics prohibits it. We have a perception of 'present' which is already in the past. We "experience" the 'present' in the past. 

Our faith in the 'present' is supported by sensory perceptions of time passing. We have to assume that what we experience as 'present reality' is accurate. But can we prove this? The answer is no, we must rely on faith. The faith that our perception of present reality is actual.


----------



## G.T. (May 5, 2015)




----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I've not claimed that "present time" doesn't exist. I've correctly stated that we cannot observe present time because it's not physically possible.
> ...



I didn't say anything about your eyeball. All of your senses depend upon passage of time. Every perception you have is of something that has already happened and is forever in the past. Logic doesn't mean a damn thing to Science. The things man has thought to be "Logical" have been disproved by Science through all the ages. If you cannot observe, test or verify something... it is not supportable by science, it requires faith. This is true for Present Time and for God.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Not to mwntion we can observe the present by touching a nerve end of the brain. Takes zero time for the signal to travel because the signal and the source occupy the same space.



This is just plain boneheaded.  

You should not be allowed in any scientific argument.


----------



## G.T. (May 5, 2015)

god = time is a "scientific argument."



Go back to grade school employee.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

G.T. said:


> god = time is a "scientific argument."
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to grade school employee.



I didn't say it was a scientific argument. God = Time... both require faith.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

*...can observe the present by touching a nerve end of the brain.*

Before you can perceive you have touched the nerve ending, you are already in the past. The present has already happened and what you are perceiving is the apparent result of it.


----------



## G.T. (May 5, 2015)

Sorry.....i cant take your feeble attempts at philosophy seriously with beetlejuice from the howard stern show as your avi man


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Sorry.....i cant take your feeble attempts at philosophy seriously with beetlejuice from the howard stern show as your avi man



Sorry, I can't take your feeble attempts at intelligence seriously because you're a dick-splash.  You think you might want to stick to the OP and not turn this  into an insult contest?


----------



## G.T. (May 5, 2015)

The op was retarded from jump.

The babble in between then and now is people doing their best to illustrate why that might be, for you, and you obfuscating and saying even more retarded things.

It ventures in and out of being entertaining, so for the people watching at home my dick has to splash or else theres no climax.


----------



## Boss (May 5, 2015)

G.T. said:


> The op was retarded from jump.
> 
> The babble in between then and now is people doing their best to illustrate why that might be, for you, and you obfuscating and saying even more retarded things.
> 
> It ventures in and out of being entertaining, so for the people watching at home my dick has to splash or else theres no climax.



...And God has to exist or nothing else does.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> ... it is not supportable by science, it requires faith. This is true for Present Time and for God.


.
present time can not be altered irregardless as supported by science, whereas faith in God is unsettled till remittance and therefore the opposite of time.

.


----------



## theword (May 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > Blind people have other senses to experience life with so of course they know what the "present" means. We can only observe the present picture. Each picture we observe comes to us at a rate so fast that it's impossible to know we're only observing once picture at a time. Camera's are able to stop that present picture for us but we will never be able to see that one picture again unless our Creator has given you a picture of the future to observe. As you're observing that future picture that our Creator is having you observe, you cannot observe the present picture or past pictures.
> ...



Do you actually believe there are real objects in a real universe? It's no wonder you think we can't observe the present.


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2015)

theword said:


> It's no wonder you think we can't observe the present.



I don't think it, I know it because of physics. Anyone who understands physics also knows it. Now if you have discovered some way for us to defy physics because of hubris and ego, it would be great to have your supporting thesis for the Nobel Prize folks. As it stands, we'll have to stick with physics.


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > It's no wonder you think we can't observe the present.
> ...


Physics says you are full of shit in your defiance of physics.


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > theword said:
> ...



Physics says no such thing. I'm not the one contradicting it. 

We cannot observe the present. Only the past. 

God = Time.


----------



## Hollie (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


"....... because I say so!"


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 6, 2015)

Mr. H. said:


> Time is the measurement of the motion of an object across a given space.
> 
> d (distance) = r (rate)  times t (time) i.e.. d=rt
> 
> ...


Brotch, that was fantastic!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 6, 2015)

Adoshem is timeless, unlimited. Not so for Homo Sapiens.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## G.T. (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Forgiving every faulty observation you have of time.....



Still doesnt make the case that god is time.


----------



## Hollie (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The op was retarded from jump.
> ...


Existence is in place in spite of the presence or absence of Amun Ra.

With your other silly threads as failed vehicles to proselytize your religion of spirit realms, your attempts to proselytize in this thread are just as pointless.


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Existence is in place in spite of the presence or absence of Amun Ra.



Never made an argument that existence wasn't in place, never argued for Amun Ra. This has nothing to do  with your personal disdain for religion. It's a matter of physical fact that can't be refuted. 

I think it's a great thread and has brought a lot of enlightenment to the table. We don't reside in the present, we have no capability of knowing the present. Everything we experience as present is already in the past.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 6, 2015)

External existence has no sense or meaning without a perceiver. There is no way to prove anything even exists if there is no one there to perceive it. All information comes to our mind through a process that is, by definition, subjective. 
There is no meaning to the term 'now' except that it is when consciousness is at work. It is the only time consciousness can be. We can only be conscious of now.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 6, 2015)

It shows some courage to continue to maintain this stance, especially in the face of some vociferous opposition.

It maintains, however, an erroneous conception of the human mind, linguistics and subjectivity.


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> We can only be conscious of now.



But we can only be conscious of 'now' after 'now' happened. We cannot directly observe 'now' because it's not physically possible. Our perception of reality depends on faith that 'now' happened as it seems to have and this is perfectly logical. However, science has crossed paths with what was thought to be 'logical' before. Enough so that we should understand, our perception of what is 'logical' could be incorrect. 

For sake of discussion, let's imagine time as slices or frames, (someone mentioned this earlier). We know through application of basic physics that the 'present' frame existed before we were able to consciously observe it. Our perception is of a frame which has passed and a new 'present' frame is currently happening which we are not yet aware of. The "present" exists but we cannot observe it until after the fact.


----------



## Hollie (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Existence is in place in spite of the presence or absence of Amun Ra.
> ...


Your god=time meme is not  physical fact so yes, it can be disputed. 

And no, I see no profound "enlightenment" in yet another thread of you prosyletizing for your new fangled religion.


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> *a new 'present' frame is currently happening*  which we are not yet aware of. The "present" exists but we cannot observe it until after the fact.


But we know it without observing it because we know that no past frame could exist without having been the present first, as you just subconsciously acknowledged. That is physics, not faith!


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *a new 'present' frame is currently happening*  which we are not yet aware of. The "present" exists but we cannot observe it until after the fact.
> ...



We know in the same way we know God exists....we have faith that it does.


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Your god=time meme is not physical fact...



Never claimed it was.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 6, 2015)

Call knowing consciousness is in the present 'faith', if that pleases vocabulary requirements.


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


But we don't know that any God or Gods exist, yet we still know there is a present whether a God exists or not.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 6, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





> *e-cynic:* But we don't know that any God or Gods exist, yet we still know there is a present whether a God exists or not.


.
likewise, by the present, we know there is an Everlasting irregardless the connection to a Deity or the relevance of believing in one relative to our own Spiritual survival ...

* particularly a personalized deity espoused by political hacks.

.


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Call knowing consciousness is in the present 'faith', if that pleases vocabulary requirements.



Again, we don't have consciousness in the present. All our consciousness is in the past. 
It's not vocabulary requirements, it's physics.


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> we don't have consciousness in the present.


Bite your tongue!


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The primary 'scientific' argument against God is that you can't observe, test or measure God. The same exact argument applies to the instant of present time. It's beyond our ability to observe, test or measure because of physics. Yet you say that "we know" something exists even though we can't confirm it with science. Now you can say that we "know" the present exists because of the evidence... time passing and our perception of what supposedly happened in the instant of the present. It's still dependent upon faith.


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> The primary 'scientific' argument against God is that you can't observe, test or measure God. The same exact argument applies to the instant of *present time. It's beyond our ability to observe, test or measure because of physics*.


BULLSHIT!
In physics it has been measured and proven that the now can influence the past!

Does the Universe Exist if We re Not Looking DiscoverMagazine.com

Wheeler's hunch is that* the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well.* To illustrate his idea, he devised what he calls his *"delayed-choice experiment," which adds a startling, cosmic variation to a cornerstone of quantum physics: the classic two-slit experiment.*

That experiment is exceedingly strange in its own right, even without Wheeler's extra kink thrown in. It illustrates a key principle of quantum mechanics: Light has a dual nature. Sometimes light behaves like a compact particle, a photon; sometimes it seems to behave like a wave spread out in space, just like the ripples in a pond. In the experiment, light — a stream of photons — shines through two parallel slits and hits a strip of photographic film behind the slits. The experiment can be run two ways: with photon detectors right beside each slit that allow physicists to observe the photons as they pass, or with detectors removed, which allows the photons to travel unobserved. When physicists use the photon detectors, the result is unsurprising: Every photon is observed to pass through one slit or the other. The photons, in other words, act like particles.

+++
But when the photon detectors are removed, something weird occurs. One would expect to see two distinct clusters of dots on the film, corresponding to where individual photons hit after randomly passing through one slit or theother. Instead, a pattern of alternating light and dark stripes appears. Such a pattern could be produced only if the photons are behaving like waves, with each individual photon spreading out and surging against both slits at once, like a breaker hitting a jetty. Alternating bright stripes in the pattern on the film show where crests from those waves overlap; dark stripes indicate that a crest and a trough have canceled each other. 

The outcome of the experiment depends on what the physicists try to measure: If they set up detectors beside the slits, the photons act like ordinary particles, always traversing one route or the other, not both at the same time. In that case the striped pattern doesn't appear on the film. But if the physicists remove the detectors, each photon seems to travel both routes simultaneously like a tiny wave, producing the striped pattern. 

Wheeler has come up with a cosmic-scale version of this experiment that has even weirder implications. Where the classic experiment demonstrates that physicists' observations determine the behavior of a photon in the present, Wheeler's version shows that our observations in the present can affect how a photon behaved in the past. 

To demonstrate, he sketches a diagram on a scrap of paper. Imagine, he says, a quasar — a very luminous and very remote young galaxy. Now imagine that there are two other large galaxies between Earth and the quasar. The gravity from massive objects like galaxies can bend light, just as conventional glass lenses do. In Wheeler's experiment the two huge galaxies substitute for the pair of slits; the quasar is the light source. Just as in the two-slit experiment, light — photons — from the quasar can follow two different paths, past one galaxy or the other. 

Suppose that on Earth, some astronomers decide to observe the quasars. In this case a telescope plays the role of the photon detector in the two-slit experiment. If the astronomers point a telescope in the direction of one of the two intervening galaxies, they will see photons from the quasar that were deflected by that galaxy; they would get the same result by looking at the other galaxy. But the astronomers could also mimic the second part of the two-slit experiment. By carefully arranging mirrors, they could make photons arriving from the routes around both galaxies strike a piece of photographic film simultaneously. Alternating light and dark bands would appear on the film, identical to the pattern found when photons passed through the two slits. 

Here's the odd part. The quasar could be very distant from Earth, with light so faint that its photons hit the piece of film only one at a time. But the results of the experiment wouldn't change. The striped pattern would still show up, meaning that a lone photon not observed by the telescope traveled both paths toward Earth, even if those paths were separated by many light-years. And that's not all. 

*By the time the astronomers decide which measurement to make — whether to pin down the photon to one definite route or to have it follow both paths simultaneously — the photon could have already journeyed for billions of years, long before life appeared on Earth. The measurements made now, says Wheeler, determine the photon's past.* In one case the astronomers create a past in which a photon took both possible routes from the quasar to Earth. Alternatively, they retroactively force the photon onto one straight trail toward their detector, even though the photon began its jaunt long before any detectors existed. 

It would be tempting to dismiss Wheeler'sthought experiment as a curious idea, except for one thing: It has been demonstrated in a laboratory. In 1984 physicists at the University of Maryland set up a tabletop version of the delayed-choice scenario. Using a light source and an arrangement of mirrors to provide a number of possible photon routes, the physicists were able to show that the paths the photons took were not fixed until the physicists made their measurements, even though those measurements were made after the photons had already left the light source and begun their circuit through the course of mirrors.


----------



## Hollie (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Of course we can observe the present, for an instantaneous moment in time. 

There is no indication that Amun Ra = time.


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Of course we can observe the present, for an instantaneous moment in time.



No we can't. We only have a perception of time after time has passed. Light has to travel, we don't instantly see it. Anything you observe has already happened in time and resides forever in the past.


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The primary 'scientific' argument against God is that you can't observe, test or measure God. The same exact argument applies to the instant of *present time. It's beyond our ability to observe, test or measure because of physics*.
> ...



Very interesting stuff indeed, however it clearly states this is a "thought experiment" and we both understand that isn't proven science or physics. Yep... some strange things happening with light in general, the famous double-slit experiment has always intrigued me, I've written OPs about that as well. You could also say that God = Light. 

You know, showing me something else that humans struggle to comprehend, which seemingly defies our understanding of logic and physics, is not helping your anti-god argument.


----------



## Hollie (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You could say that Amun Ra = light but that would mean that Amun Ra is forever in the past. You might want to weasel around that by claiming that Amun Ra is a continuous stream of photons. Of course, that would confound your earlier argument such that you can never experience Amun Ra beccause you can have no present perception of him.


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your God is just powerless to stop you from lying!

From the last paragraph I cited:

It would be tempting to dismiss Wheeler's thought experiment as a curious idea, except for one thing:* It has been demonstrated in a laboratory.*


----------



## amrchaos (May 6, 2015)

Somewhere, I lost track of the ideas discussed in this thread.

What are you two arguing about?  How is the nature of our present important in determining if Time is God?


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Your God is just powerless to stop you from lying!
> 
> From the last paragraph I cited:
> 
> It would be tempting to dismiss Wheeler's thought experiment as a curious idea, except for one thing:* It has been demonstrated in a laboratory.*



Indeed. You're showing me an experiment which seems to prove that the past can be changed. Something that seems to completely defy logic and physics but it doesn't because it can be demonstrated. Light is a strange and mysterious property in a lot of ways. So is electromagnetism and gravity, and so is Time. As much as we like to think physics has it all figured out, it doesn't. We continue to be perplexed and astounded at things we discover. 

But absolutely none of what you are posting has anything to do with observation of the present. In fact, what you are offering is more evidence that we can't be absolutely sure what is happening in the present. Just because we assume it is as we perceive it after the fact, doesn't mean it actually is. Logic can be totally wrong, as in your example.


----------



## Boss (May 6, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> Somewhere, I lost track of the ideas discussed in this thread.
> 
> What are you two arguing about?  How is the nature of our present important in determining if Time is God?



It's not about the "nature" of present. It's about our ability to observe, test and measure the actual present. The physical fact is, we cannot observe the instant of present time, we have to wait for light to travel. Anything we have perception of has already happened and is no longer in the present.

We have faith that a 'present' exists and our perception of it is accurate. This is the basis for my argument that God is Time. Both rely on faith, both are out of the realm of our comprehension and ability to observe.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?


I have to disagree....."time" is meaningless to an eternal being......I believe that Genesis tells us the first thing created was "time".....that which separates day and night......the passage of time......


----------



## BreezeWood (May 6, 2015)

.
there needn't be a God for the existence of the Everlasting, where a Spirit may reside when set free - there just happens to be one or one would evolve ... as is.

to say the present is alterable is the same as saying 1+1 does not = 2, a stupid argument, almost as stupid as equating the Almighty in some way to Time.

.


----------



## edthecynic (May 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> It's about our ability to observe, test and measure the actual present.


And I gave you an experiment where the observed, measured and tested actual present had an effect on the past. That means in quantum time, which is physics by the way, past, present and future all exist at the same time.


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It's about our ability to observe, test and measure the actual present.
> ...



Again... it's not about what "exists" but what is observable to us.


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, it is also about what can be tested and measured.


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



And nothing can be tested or measured if it cannot be observed.


----------



## Hollie (May 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Obviously false. The force of gravity is one example that refutes your claim.


----------



## G.T. (May 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Somewhere, I lost track of the ideas discussed in this thread.
> ...


Again, accepting your false premise that both require faith ----

That doesnt get you, logically, to "thus, god IS time."

Theres zero logical connection there.


----------



## Muslim75 (May 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?


 
God Almighty (who is above any form of humanness) existed before eternity. The Holy Qur'an also existed before eternity, it is the Uncreated Word of God.

Time is both eternity and before eternity. Rather than God being "Time", God is "The Time", as we have it in Islam. Consider that at one point humans used to hunt, fish and harvest. Now, there are industries and trade. Then realise that God is The Time.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 7, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


????......you can't observe gravity?.....meet me on the roof of a tall building......


----------



## Hollie (May 7, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The gawds have punished you by making you slow. Such are the wages of belief in YEC'ist dogma.

The _affects_ of gravity are observable.


----------



## edthecynic (May 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And yet physicists tested and measured the effect the present has on the past.


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Again, accepting your false premise that both require faith ----
> 
> That doesnt get you, logically, to "thus, god IS time."
> 
> Theres zero logical connection there.



1) It's not a false premise, it's a true statement you're unable to refute. 

2) It doesn't have to make logical sense to be true. 

3) I have already indicated "God = Time" is somewhat allegorical... God is actually greater than Time. This is not presented as "scientific proof" of God, it's totally faith-based. Just as our acceptance of "present time" is faith-based.


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> And yet physicists tested and measured the effect the present has on the past.



Well no... they tested a perception of the present because they are physically unable to observe the present. In other words, they tested the effect of the past on a more distant past. What's interesting is they found the past can be changed (totally contradictory to logic, G.T.). Of course, if the past can be changed after it happens, then change can also happen between the actual moment of present and our perception of it happening in the past.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (May 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?



You are calling what is of Satan - God.  God is not Time. God does not live in time.   Your teaching is based on Saturn - astrology and the occult.   Very wicked.


----------



## G.T. (May 7, 2015)

Oh oh then. Circle jerk completed.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (May 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You're a Satanist.  Manson is a Satanist too and those who follow Satan believe in and practice astrology - See this video - note the 00:38 marker and the reader will see this:

Saturn is also associated with time, sharing the same persona as *KRONOS, The god of Time, as well as the grim reaper....... 
*
You are trying to deceive people on this board into believing you are speaking of God Almighty - Jesus Christ - but you are speaking of your god.  Satan.  It's a wicked lie.   Jesus Christ is LORD and everyone including you are going to confess with your tongue Jesus is Lord and bow your knee to him one day!   So is your god, Lucifer.


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> ...



No disrespect, I fully agree that time means nothing to God but this is not a theological argument I am making. God is actually greater than time, but for the sake of talking to the monkeys, I've simplified it so we can communicate.


----------



## Boss (May 7, 2015)

Jeremiah said:


> You are trying to deceive people on this board into believing you are speaking of God Almighty - Jesus Christ - but you are speaking of your god. Satan. It's a wicked lie. Jesus Christ is LORD and everyone including you are going to confess with your tongue Jesus is Lord and bow your knee to him one day! So is your god, Lucifer.



I disregard negative spiritual energy. I've devoted my mortal life as a human to promoting the flow of positive spiritual energy. I am not here to proselytize or convert you to my religion because I don't have a religion. I think Jesus Christ was a swell guy who said a lot of powerful and important things. We could all learn some strong spiritual lessons from his teachings. BUT... this thread is not a theological debate. The concept of "God" is not owned by Christian religion. 

Whenever your "religion" starts making you judge people and turn them into messengers of Satan and such... this makes you a danger to society. We need look no further than radical Islam for relevant examples. I recommend you turn the computer off and go read your Bible... Start with Matthew 7:1.


----------



## Coyote (May 7, 2015)

*Guys - discuss the topic.  Posts must have content related to the topic in addition to any flames.*


----------



## there4eyeM (May 7, 2015)

At what time does one know God?

And remember, if everything is one thing, then it is nothing.


----------



## Hollie (May 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Which of the gawds have given you authority to speak affirmatively on their behalf?


----------



## RandomVariable (May 7, 2015)

Made it to page 4. Just can not read through all this stuff. Some of it is really good, some of it not so much so. I happened to just watch this video about Heidegger's philosophy(ies) this afternoon. Maybe one of most renown philosophy books is "Being and Time", by the above mentioned, published in 1927. Heidegger's statement is 'we are time'. So perhaps one could carry this to 'we are god'? (Absolutely not but for the sake of argument perhaps, perhaps not.) 

(You can skip to 9:20 to get directly to the comments about time.)


----------



## there4eyeM (May 7, 2015)

Meaning, nothing has meaning if there is no one there to give it.

We are 'there'/here. It is not here for us, it is here because we are.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 7, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Meaning, nothing has meaning if there is no one there to give it.
> 
> We are 'there'/here. It is not here for us, it is here because we are.


If I am not misapplying Kant too badly here nothing has meaning without understanding. Simply being someone is necessary but not sufficient.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 7, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Such are the wages of belief in YEC'ist dogma.
> 
> The _affects_ of gravity are observable.


I am of the opinion that if you were pushed off a tall building the Earth would not be much older before you observed gravity.......


----------



## theword (May 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Your God is just powerless to stop you from lying!
> ...


 : :

Time isn't something that's real. It is an illusion that an observer can sense if he's aware of it. Otherwise, an observer can only perceive one picture at a time that gives him the sense of motion, which is needed to sense time. Since we're only stationary information until processed into pictures, time, motion, space and matter, everything we experience is an illusion.


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2015)

theword said:


> Time isn't something that's real. It is an illusion that an observer can sense if he's aware of it. Otherwise, an observer can only perceive one picture at a time that gives him the sense of motion, which is needed to sense time. Since we're only stationary information until processed into pictures, time, motion, space and matter, everything we experience is an illusion.



No one can perceive any picture until light travels. My argument is that we can't observe the present. Regardless of your theories on time, this remains true. If you want to imagine time as slices or frames which give perception of motion, that's fine... it has nothing to do with my argument.


----------



## Hollie (May 9, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Such are the wages of belief in YEC'ist dogma.
> ...





PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Such are the wages of belief in YEC'ist dogma.
> ...


And you changed your opinion when I corrected you for your falsely formed comment about gravity. Which is why you selectively edited my comment in your post.


----------



## Hollie (May 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > Time isn't something that's real. It is an illusion that an observer can sense if he's aware of it. Otherwise, an observer can only perceive one picture at a time that gives him the sense of motion, which is needed to sense time. Since we're only stationary information until processed into pictures, time, motion, space and matter, everything we experience is an illusion.
> ...


And when light travels, there is an instantaneous moment in time when we perceive the present. Regardless of your _god=time_™ meme, our perception of time is a function of the interaction of our eyes and brain.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


not true...generally I edit your posts because I don't give a fuck what you say......however, in this instance I didn't edit anything............


----------



## BreezeWood (May 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > theword said:
> ...


.


> B: ... everything we experience is an illusion.



not at all, only the interpretation would be illusionary by some not the element of exterior exposure that is set by the present tense and irregardless when registered.

you have stated there is more to your " time is (your) god " theory, hopefully you have something in mind to "share" as per your delineation to your receptive audience ...


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> And when light travels, there is an instantaneous moment in time when we perceive the present. Regardless of your _god=time_™ meme, our perception of time is a function of the interaction of our eyes and brain.



There is no instantaneous moment in time when we perceive the present. Our perception is always of the past and we can label it however we please. I demonstrated how this works earlier with my Super Bowl analogy. I watched the Super Bowl live on my television but my perception of the present was actually the past. Everything I saw had already happened. For someone sitting in the stadium the perception of present time was completely different. To compound further, someone sitting in the nosebleed section had a different perception of present time than someone on the sideline. Light had to travel further. 

Yes, our perception of "the present" is a function of our eyes interacting with our brain. This requires TIME and cannot happen without it. Therefore, all you perceive is time which has passed. The instant you experience as "present" is not in the present anymore, it can't be. It's not physically possible.


----------



## Hollie (May 9, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


......except for the part you edited out.


----------



## Hollie (May 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > And when light travels, there is an instantaneous moment in time when we perceive the present. Regardless of your _god=time_™ meme, our perception of time is a function of the interaction of our eyes and brain.
> ...


There actually is an instantaneous moment in time when we perceive the present. It's called perception.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


But what we perceive is a continuation of what we have perceived in the past. There is no such thing as instantaneous perception, an argument made several times in this thread. (Ah, another person so caught up in their own conclusions they can not learn along the way.)


----------



## Hollie (May 9, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There actually is an instantaneous perception of time. It's called _the present. _


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> There actually is an instantaneous moment in time when we perceive the present. It's called perception.



I know what perception is. Our only perception is of time which has passed. The "instantaneous moment" is already in the past before we can perceive it, and in fact, takes even more time to compute in our brains after we have received the information. Furthermore, your perception is completely different than every other human being. We can look up at a star and understand we are looking at a star in present time, that is our perception. We are actually looking at a star from hundreds of years ago. The star may not even presently exist anymore. Our perception of present is always the past, it's physically impossible for it not to be.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 9, 2015)

'Now' is outside of time. It is timeless because it is always 'now'. What appears to be residue from the past is merely a part of now and does not exist separately. 
'Now' is the universe coming into being.
It is not coming from the past and is not going to the future.
It is timeless because it is always only now. 
It is ephemeral because it never lasts, merely continues becoming. 
If 'God' is anything, it is now (I Am).


----------



## Hollie (May 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > There actually is an instantaneous moment in time when we perceive the present. It's called perception.
> ...


It's remarkable that you continually refute your own claims while you stumble over the arguments made earlier.

You wrote: "The instant you experience as "present" is not in the present anymore, it can't be."

So yes, we have an instantaneous experience of the present. Your various arguments when / when not contradicting themselves suggests there never is a present condition (except when you contradict that argument), but only a past condition. I suppose you're suggesting the present has never occurred.


----------



## Hollie (May 9, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> 'Now' is outside of time. It is timeless because it is always 'now'. What appears to be residue from the past is merely a part of now and does not exist separately.
> 'Now' is the universe coming into being.
> It is not coming from the past and is not going to the future.
> It is timeless because it is always only now.
> ...


Amun Ra is the literal translation for "I Am", "gods", God <----capital G for dramatic affect, _god=time_™, etc., etc.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 9, 2015)

.
the same for a freed Spirit, I am is the goal, all would be God's.

.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you can follow the chain of quotes back if you wish.....everything you posted is there.....


----------



## BreezeWood (May 9, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


.


> you can follow the chain of quotes back if you wish.....everything you posted is there.....





> *Post:* not true...generally I edit your posts because I don't give a fuck what you say......




generally speaking, will there be a further development of the OP's contention - " God is Time " ? it is interesting by the statement accordingly that science, physics precludes the present as attainable ....

.


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Follow closely because you are just about to get this. I've not contradicted anything. We do have an experience we call "the present" but it's not in the present when it's already in the past. I don't suggest there never is a present, only that we are unable to observe it. We can only observe time in the past, after the present has happened.  

How do we know the present is as we perceive it after-the-fact in the past? Faith.  And it is really no different than faith in God or God's 'existence'.


----------



## edthecynic (May 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Follow closely because you are just about to get this. I've not contradicted anything. We do have an experience we call "the present" but it's not in the present when it's already in the past. I don't suggest there never is a present, only that we are unable to observe it. *We can* only *observe time* in the past, after the present has happened.
> 
> How do we know the present is as we perceive it after-the-fact in the past? Faith. And it is really no different than faith in God or God's 'existence'.


Except the title of your thread is not "God is the present."
You have admitted that even YOU can observe time and therefore time is not a matter of faith like God.

God tells me that he has no time for your bullshit, but he is powerless to stop your lying BS.


----------



## Boss (May 9, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Except the title of your thread is not "God is the present."



Yes, the title is a little ambiguous by design. I've already said that God is actually _greater_ than Time. God is also greater than Light or Energy. Omnipotence, baby! 

The OP states my argument which has yet to be refuted. 



edthecynic said:


> You have admitted that even YOU can observe time and therefore time is not a matter of faith like God.



No, I didn't admit I can observe the present because no one can. Physically impossible. I can only observe time which has passed, and that's all I can test or evaluate scientifically. I am unable to observe the actual moment of present time. 

If we cannot observe it, we cannot test or measure it. This is fundamental science. So what do we have to 'prove' the moment of 'present' is as we perceive it to be in the past? We're not there, we can't observe it, test it or measure it. We assume the present is as we perceive... we have _FAITH_. 

Now open that mind of yours for a moment and consider this... God, being timeless, could reside in that moment of 'present' and could be the creator of the entirety of what you will perceive as "the present" when you finally observe it in the past. God literally creates everything you perceive as a universe in that instant of 'present'. ...Then, you perceive it as 'reality.'


----------



## edthecynic (May 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Except the title of your thread is not "God is the present."
> ...


Of course you had to carefully edit this part of my post to create your lie.
*"Except the title of your thread is not "God is the present.""*

Thank you for again proving just how powerless you God is at stopping you from lying!


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Of course you had to carefully edit this part of my post to create your lie.
> *"Except the title of your thread is not "God is the present.""*
> 
> Thank you for again proving just how powerless you God is at stopping you from lying!



 WTF are you talking about? I didn't edit anything, carefully or otherwise. 

You made two points and I addressed them both. Then you tossed out an ad hom, which I didn't feel compelled to address so I didn't quote it. Moron.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you had to carefully edit this part of my post to create your lie.
> ...



Ahh.. okay, now I see what you're complaining about... I didn't quote your edited misquote of myself! 

Here is what you tried to pull...

_"*We can* only *observe time* in the past, after the present has happened." - Boss_

So what you are doing is editing and piecing together an incorrect sentence and claiming I said this. So I guess we can conclude that your lying goes unabated in the absence of God?

In English, we construct these things called "sentences" and it's important to remember the punctuation marks which end one. Each part of the entire sentence is important in conveying a thought or idea. Failure to consider some of the words results in catastrophic understanding of what was said, and most non-retarded English-speaking people understand this.


----------



## edthecynic (May 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


As is typical of the far Right, they play dumb in order to keep lying.

You pretend you are too stupid to know the difference between the title YOU gave this thread and the meaningless unrelated bullshit you argue about the "present."

The fact remains that the existence of TIME does NOT take the same faith as a belief in a God who is powerless to stop you from lying.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2015)

Faith in "the present" is no different than faith in God.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faith in "the present" is no different than faith in God.


"Pointless babble".


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yes. I've got this. 

You wrote: "We do have an experience we call "the present" but it's not in the present when it's already in the past."

You do realize that you write like a five year old, right?


----------



## RandomVariable (May 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?


Can time create?


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 10, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


he's hoping to make it something you can understand.......


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There's no point being made. It's much like when you rattle on with your YEC'ist fantasies.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 10, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You keep using the acronym 'YEC'. What is a YEC?


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faith in "the present" is no different than faith in God.


Not true. The present is a measure of time. Time is both measurable and quantifiable, unlike your version of the gawds. There is no faith requirement to understand the passage of time.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Young Earth Creationist. A biblical literalist.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> And it is really no different than faith in God or God's 'existence'.


. 
there is no time associated with the Everlasting, the destination of a freed Spirit. the concept of God is a variance to existence without physiology, the set of rules necessary for admittance, freedom - rules are not faith but end results of experience.

.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 10, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


PostmodernProph is a Bible literalist? How do you figure that?


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faith in "the present" is no different than faith in God.
> ...



Well, no.... a "measure of time" would be a second, day, year, etc. "Present" is not a measure, it's a point. Time is measurable, quantifiable, sometimes linear and sometimes relative... none of this has anything to do with our inability to observe the moment of 'present' time. All we can observe is time passing. We need no faith in something we can observe. The present and future require our faith.


----------



## Boss (May 10, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Can time create?



Interesting question. At first I was tempted to say yes... look at the Grand Canyon.  But time alone didn't create that. Not to sound like Obama,  but time had help from other elements. Then I was tempted to say time is required to create something, but again... is it? Quantum entanglement challenges such a notion. 

As we've seen in this thread, the word "time" can be used to mean a variety of things. It's never exclusive to any of those things it's just that we use the word to mean different things in different context. In this particular context, we are discussing the "arrow of time" and the point in time we perceive as "present." Our perception of present is actually not the moment of the present, that already happened and we've experienced the after-effect. 

We rely on faith because we can't observe, measure, test or examine the precise moment of 'present' time. All we have to go by is what we perceive after the present, in the past.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Literal interpretation of the Genesis fable, Noah's Pleasure Cruise, etc.


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Pontificating as a way of proselytizing is not helpful. The present and future require no faith. That makes no sense. As I pointed out earlier, time is both measurable and quantifiable, unlike your version of the gawds. There is no faith requirement to understand the passage of time. Similarly, the passage of time will occur from the instantaneous moment of our perception to receding into our past without faith in your gawds or anyone else's gawds.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 10, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



she doesn't "figure" it.....she calls anyone she can't beat in an argument a YEC because it helps her pretend she is superior to them.......


----------



## Hollie (May 10, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You've never put forth an argument for anything. Your silly one-liners do nothing more than defend an inability to adequately express concepts in sentence format. 

Other than a YEC'ist, how do we describe one who takes biblical tales and fables as literal rendering of history?


----------



## RandomVariable (May 10, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


How does the acronym YEC mean (B)ible (L)iteralist?


----------



## sealybobo (May 10, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



I'm having a real problem getting christians to discuss this whole heaven and hell thing. They will not talk to each other and debate argue or discuss it. Oh half of them will tell me there is no hell or that the bible doesnt say that. One christian said I should stop listening to "small fringe christian denominations", suggesting they were catholics and that they dont believe non christians burn in hell for eternity. I would love to have christians discuss it.

One said it says we go to hell in john something or other and one person said john 2;22;23 says it.

I actually like christians believing all non christians go to hell because it emphasizes how stupid and man made and controlling it is. When they water down god it really comes down to they believe because they can't imagine otherwise, wishful thinking and they are feared into it or brainwashed. 

Anyways. Why dont christians care that half the people that consider themselves christians dont even agree on the main details.


----------



## sealybobo (May 10, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Where do the allegories stop and real history begin? I think anyone who believes today is no smarter than people 20,000 years ago. They may know more because of school and all but mentally a less evolved species. 

It use to be a good trait to have but I think it will evolve out of us eventually. God willing.


----------



## sealybobo (May 10, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Are you watching Jesus ad on NBC? They are debating with Jews in public. Jews vs christians. I say they are all fools. Is anyone in the crowd an athiest? Probably not hanging out listening to the crazies argue. Seriously if I saw people arguing what they were saying and pushing and threatening each other? Creepy.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?





Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?






OK. I get it. You're a moron and no one ever bothered to tell you.


----------



## theword (May 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > Time isn't something that's real. It is an illusion that an observer can sense if he's aware of it. Otherwise, an observer can only perceive one picture at a time that gives him the sense of motion, which is needed to sense time. Since we're only stationary information until processed into pictures, time, motion, space and matter, everything we experience is an illusion.
> ...



Both light information and information that forms visible objects are processed at the same exact time to form a picture we can observe. That picture is always the present unless God gives us pictures of the future or past to observe, in which, the present can't be observed at the same time.


----------



## theword (May 10, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > theword said:
> ...



No. It's an interaction of what is happening in the mind, not the brain and eyes. Brains and eyes are only illusions.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 10, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


yet it continues to escape your notice that  I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......


----------



## Genevieve (May 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?



Interesting.
But I disagree.
Time is an illusion that we have created.
Time only exists on this earth.  Even the astronauts who are in the space station do not experience time in the same way that we do.  Once anything leaves the atmosphere and orbit of this earth...........  time ceases to exist.

God is Love.  In that sentence, Love is both predicate nominative and predicate adjective.  Nominative because Love is the essence of God.  Adjective because Love describes God.

Love is everything.
Love is everywhere, or almost everywhere.  
Absence of Love is ................Hell.


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago. 

As for the rest of the various bibles, just interpret them to suit your likes/dislikes.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


and yet I believe neither......


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You're suffering from_ "I don't understand" _syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Hollie, I am kind of serious about this, maybe actually serious. Have you had your inability to comprehend diagnosed?


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Are you really serious or just kinda' maybe serious?


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Not sure. It is one thing to take what someone says and cast it in a new light or change the angle of perception or even play a little on the words but it is very different, and probably against board rules, to reply to a post and just completely misrepresent what they just said. Are you aware this is what you are doing?


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


As this is an issue of great concern to you, why don't you and the self-entitled "prophet" discuss his particular version of christian theology. He has previously identified Genesis as the creation of time by the gawds. Is that a literal interpretation or not? If not, let us know the definitive interpretation of those bible elements that are literal renderings and those that are not.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Please reread this exchange and explain to me your value-added here?

Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did....... 

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago. 

Postmodern: and yet I believe neither...... 

Hollie: You're suffering from_ "I don't understand" _syndrome. There's more than just a minor amount of evidence that the planet is greater than 6,000 years old.​
I believe everyone is allowed a little indulgence in trolling here and there but this is... What is this? I do not even know what this is. Can you not read? Can you not comprehend? Can you not think? If you are trying to be clever, you're not. And if you are trying to troll you are even failing in that.


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


I couldn't help but notice you made every attempt to avoid addressing what I wrote. 

You and the "prophet" may want to address the legitimacy of the genesis fable. Is it a literal rendering or not? If you and the "prophet" are going to simply pick and choose through the bibles; accept the parts you like, discard those you don't, why bother with any of it?

Why troll the thread when you have nothing to contribute?


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Questioning the legitimacy of the "genesis fable" might be a perfectly good conversation but it was not part of the conversation when you brought it up. Example:
Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.​Deflection is often used on the board to disrupt a conversation when one does not like the way things are going. Such as, "My religion does no wrong because your religion did..." But bringing up random topics is not deflection. It is a demonstration of an inability to hold a coherent conversation.

In your reply to Postmodern's statement that he does not interpret the scriptures literally you reply that failed to notice something. How is him failing to notice something related to whether or not he interprets the scriptures literally? It's not. It is just a random statement that does not even qualify as deflection.


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


I can agree with your comments regarding deflection. Its a common tactic used when religionists are held to a consistent, identifiable standard. The "prophet" has claimed that the genesis fable is a standard by which we can identify the beginning of time. It was a simple matter to challenge that. Genesis suggests a 6,000 year old earth. Is that accurate or not? If not, what standard (other than none or personal preference), is used to reach that conclusion? Similarly, if the Noah fable is not literally true, what does that suggest about the veracity of other biblical tales? In other words, is the message of the bibles a cold, unalterable law: _Ye must believeth this, or be damned, _or rather an exercise in pick and choose theism?

Are we to accept that the bibles range from fact to fiction, from literalism to metaphor helter-skelter, and humans are then asked to pick and choose which aspects are literal and which are not?

Is the biblical flood literally or not? Is Joshua's sun-standing still (i.e., Earth stopping its rotation) a true rendering of an historical event, or not? Is Adam and Eve and original sin true (this one is primary, for without it, all the rest is unnecessary).

Kinda. Sorta. Yes and no, some yes, some no. Super. Make it up as you go. That's what you embrace. Meanwhile, the underlying message remains:

Believe this, or be eternally, forever, always and from now until never – roasted in Hell.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Another method of argument, which is sometimes used if deflection fails, is to overwhelm a post with items as to escape the certain defeat. 

All your items are worthy of discussion, which I would be happy to indulge you in, they do not, however, negated the fact that:
Postmodern: yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Hollie: Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.​is not a coherent reply to Postmodern's post. I would not bother bringing it to your attention if you did not do it so very often. (I am so very tempted to say, 'all the time' but that is just a bit of a hyperbole.)


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


It's clear you're employing the very tactic of deflection you're accusing others of doing. I gave you a specific example of my challenge to the "prophet" in connection with his claim that the genesis fable could be an accurate baseline for the beginning of time. You chose to sidestep that with nothing more than a shuffling of the comments you posted earlier with not a single attempt to address my posted comments.

It appears that you cannot defend either the literal rendering of the bibles as an accurate documentary of earth's history or the comments of the self-entitled "prophet" as using biblical tales and fables as an accurate rendering of earth history.


----------



## Boss (May 11, 2015)

Genevieve said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> ...



"Once anything leaves the atmosphere and orbit of this earth.... time ceases to exist."

Wonderful! You've apparently unlocked the key to immortality! We simply travel away from the orbit of earth where time doesn't exist, then we can never age!


----------



## Boss (May 11, 2015)

theword said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > theword said:
> ...



It seems as if you feel compelled to explain how light works to me. Try to get this through your head... We can't "observe" anything in the present. The "picture" is a snapshot of the past. This is NOT A THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT! I don't really care what you believe God gives us or doesn't give us. I am discussing the scientific fact that physics has to happen before we can perceive anything. Light has to travel, images have to be processed, our perception of "the present" is no longer in the present, it is forever in the past.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 11, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...





> *RV:* Questioning the legitimacy of the "genesis fable" might be a perfectly good conversation but it was not part of the conversation when you brought it up ...





> *Post:* I have to disagree....."time" is meaningless to an eternal being......I believe that Genesis tells us the first thing created was "time".....that which separates day and night......the passage of time......


.
" Deflection is often used on the board to disrupt a conversation " - so claims the dismembering christian.




> OP: I am discussing the scientific fact that physics has to happen before *we* can perceive anything.



are you again implying physics has captured the living Spirit ?


* or in your case is deflection just an acronym for distraction ....

.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Fine. Would you like an exchange of thoughts in which I explain who/what God is? You will have to tell me what you think and what you want to know. I will read and reply. I am not interested in arguing with you. If you would like to have such a conversation we should start a new thread, before Boss gets upset gives us a time-out.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Please explain 'dismembering christian'. In other words, who am I and what am I doing?


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Can time create?
> ...


Since we are abusing your thread to a degree I rarely see I will post a follow-up. 

You stated the Grand Canyon was created, presumably by water and time. I would phrase it as the Grand Canyon was formed over time by water. The nuance is the lack of an intelligent force. To elaborate my question: Can time create creatively?


----------



## Abishai100 (May 11, 2015)

*Avatar Attribution*



Much of religious texts from around the world seem to imply that God the hypothetical wise creator governs over two realms of folly or frailty (or at least provides guidance about them):

1. Mischief

2. Vanity

If we take iconography from both spiritualism and art (since art represents a social perception of sentimentalism usually), we obtain two characters (or avatars) who represent a focus on mischief and vanity.

These two avatars are *Shiva*, the Hindu god of meditation and devastation, and *Cyclonus*, an A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) science-fiction robot warrior who serves as a diabolical consultant and drone for the sinister Decepticon army from the robot-apocalypse themed animated franchise Transformers (Hasbro).

Shiva represents a curiosity about control over chaos (as it applies to the unpredictability of turbulence and devastation), while Cyclonus represents a curiosity about tampering with civics and ethics (as they apply to leadership and prominence).  Shiva and Cyclonus are great characters to use in discussions about the gravity of mischief and vanity.

Mischief draws human beings towards gibberish, while vanity draws human beings towards self-indulgence.  Shiva seems to offer comments about doing away with gibberish, while Cyclonus seems to offer comments/symbols about the general opportunism associated with self-indulgence.

If God, a possible all-knowing Creator, does not exist, where do we get ideas about characterizing the philosophical complexities of emotions about sentimentalism, frailty, self-organization (or governance), and humility?  While many philosophers have conjectured that we don't need a figurehead God to talk about the concepts of government and social contracts, they do not necessarily discount the curiosity about _imagining_ elaborate hierarchies of leadership (which lead to a theoretical God or supreme being).

"To make peace, we must make war."  We can reorient this adage to suggest, "To understand God, we must understand men."

Shiva and Cyclonus are as useful in the discussion about the limits or power of God as are the governance-philosophy models offered by great thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche.  How do Shiva and Cyclonus reveal the social sentiments surrounding a curiosity about governance/power characterization?

I like differentiating the concepts or symbols surrounding Shiva and Cyclonus.  Shiva seems to represent jurisprudence, while Cyclonus seems to represent profiteerism.

Shiva appears resolute and pensive, while Cyclonus appears fierce and cunning.

I like thinking about how this topic illuminates the social appeal of relevant civics-caricature Hollywood (USA) movies such as "The Devil's Advocate" (1997).







Cyclonus (Wikipedia)

Shiva (Wikipedia)


----------



## Genevieve (May 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> Genevieve said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Where in there did I say our body doesn't age even if it's outside of time?
I don't know whether it does or not, but pretty sure those people on the space station age.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 11, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Please explain 'dismembering christian'. In other words, who am I and what am I doing?





> Two kids standing in the woods. Good kids, done nothing much wrong in their lives. They start talking about one of their teachers who is really hot, and married. Branch falls from a tree close by and crashes to the ground.
> 
> Next day the two kids ... Branch crashes nearby.
> 
> ... A branch crashes and he freezes.


.
sorry christian, I just feel dismembering a tree to make a point is not a message the Almighty would appreciate, one that is promulgated by christian disrespect for living beings embedded from their scriptural "genesis".


all living beings are Spiritual = / = Time nor Gravity.

.


----------



## Boss (May 11, 2015)

Genevieve said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Genevieve said:
> ...



Pretty sure you're right about that which is why it's extremely goofy to proclaim time doesn't exist!


----------



## Boss (May 11, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



you make the assumption time, water and physics aren't controlled by an intelligent force.


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There is exactly zero evidence to accept claims that your particular gawds control the natural, rational world.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Genesis suggests a 6,000 year old earth. Is that accurate or not?



you, the Rev. Phelps and a guy from the 1500s named Usscher believe that to be accurate....I do not share your belief that the book of Genesis suggests a 6000 year old earth......given that I have told you this a dozen times, you should be well aware of this......


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Similarly, if the Noah fable is not literally true, what does that suggest about the veracity of other biblical tales?


absolutely  nothing......


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> I gave you a specific example of my challenge to the "prophet" in connection with his claim that the genesis fable could be an accurate baseline for the beginning of time.


???.....what claim are you referring to?.......you mean my statement that God created time?.......what "baseline" does that set?......


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I gave you a specific example of my challenge to the "prophet" in connection with his claim that the genesis fable could be an accurate baseline for the beginning of time.
> ...


The other guy answered on your behalf........................did a better job than you could have............................he understands punctuation and sentence structure.................


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


What I did, Hollie, was fail. I tried to get you to give up this childish hatred of religion just long enough to find God. I do not know what will crack that brick of a head you have, maybe it just can't be done, but I'm OK, Postmodern is OK, you, on the other hand, have a serious problem to deal with. I realize that whether it was your cat, your parents, or your child it is still the same to you, God failed you and you are going to get him back as long as you the ability to post. If you like I can walk you through how it works. I'll bet Postmodern can do the same. Please don't hate God. There is someone somewhere who is wishing you didn't. There are two people right here who wish you didn't. (Three whenever you're ready.)


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...





RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...




Lights up slowly. Music softly, and then building.

*Striding to the middle of the room.*

*Stepping upon the SoapBox of Everlasting Clarity.*
*
loud clear voice:*
*
Yes, you are right. I realize what you say is correct. Thank you for helping me understand. I appreciate it.*

 *Stepping off Soapbox.*

*Purposeful stride to wings, Exuent.*

*Music down. Lights down, and out.*

 Curtain.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You're in the religious forum preaching to religious people about honesty, why don't you be honest and tell us why you hate religion so much. And no BS, generic reason. Your personal reason for hating religion. An honest answer you might say. Show us how it is done.


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Your heavy handed proselytizing is not the way to win converts.

I'm here to counsel you if you want to free yourself from fear and superstition. All you have to do is take the first step and an intervention can be arranged.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I was raised an atheist. How about you?


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Yes.


Go on.


And how does that make you feel?


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


It gave me a great distrust of religion. I am also a third generation software engineer so being logical and exact is almost in my blood one might say. I only learned about God about this time last year. Only after my parents were divorced after 27 years of marriage did I learn my mother is religious. She now attends Episcopalian church regularly. After the Army I lived with my grandmother for a couple years. Her parents were Jewish but she revolted against her parents and married a 'scream at the Church atheist', where my father gets it from. I don't know how much of her character is from being raised Jewish and how much from being a child of the Great Depression. She was born in 1918 and passed away recently. My wife, to whom I have been married 20 years, is a Shiite Muslim raising in Iran. She is non-practicing but she went to one of the best Islamic girl schools in Tehran. I have spent a lot of time with the in-laws and learn many of the customs, often the hard way. My wife insists I am Jewish so one can imagine how well she likes me devoting my life to God, not her God though. My teenager is a ardent atheist. Since I was not religious I figured in time he would become agnostic as I was from about 10 until a year ago. 

Well, that's me in a nutshell. Care to share or is this all about me? I'm feeling very selfish here.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Oh, speaking of feeling I should probably mention that my younger brother, by one year, committed suicide at the age of 17. Guess he's hell, huh? I am so glad we are having this little chat.


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

I don't share such personal information on a public messageboard. Sorry.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> I don't share such personal information on a public messageboard. Sorry.


You know practically nothing more about me now than you did half an hour ago. Welcome to being human. What matters is on the inside.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> I don't share such personal information on a public messageboard. Sorry.


Being human does have its drawbacks, one of which is needing to get some sleep. Hopefully in the morning you will have a post for me. If you share something that would be nice but what I would really like is a question. You know the one.


----------



## Hollie (May 11, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I don't share such personal information on a public messageboard. Sorry.
> ...


Sorry. I don't offer personal information. I've been hounded by someone previously to supply my mailing address so they can forward religious literature. 

Yeah. That'll happen.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 11, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> I only learned about God about this time last year.


.
really, were you by chance looking at a clock ?

.


----------



## Boss (May 11, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...





Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Really? I see loads of evidence. Science hasn't ruled out God.

The only evidence you have for the reality you exist in is memory of the past. You can't see the present, you have faith in you perception of it.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Of course you do. Like most religionists, you see evidence for the gawds which are a part of your cultural norms. Christians will see Images of a tall, Caucasian looking Hey-Zeus in the most unlikely places while Moslems see evidence for Allah on a piece of toast or written on the side of a fish. A Hindu might have visions of Shiva but not Mary Magdalene.

We even get those flowery assessments that one or more of the gawds exist because of the "perfect order of the universe" as you have described it, unaware that the universe is a very chaotic place.

And no, science hasn't ruled out many gawds as science hasn't ruled out Bigfoot, Leprechauns or that Allah written on the side of a fish might really be a hand written note from Muhammud (swish).

Can you disprove it?


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I did not ask you for your mailing address. I asked for the reason you are harassing Postmodern. Oh, and, good morning.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


I think you will find that no one is harassing the self-entitled "prophet". This is a public message board and there is, or should be, an expectation that posting your views in such a forum will generate opposing views. You or anyone else can make statements insisting that there is a supernatural realm inhabited by supernatural entities. That you may believe these supernatural entities to be extant and they created all of existence, fully formed a mere few thousand years ago is unsupportable. That such tales and fables mimic earlier tales and fables in not accidental. Humanity is evolving away from such mythology. Man's baser instincts are clearly evolving, at least for some of us. We are not as dispassionate as we once were. We are not as superstitious as we once were. We have gone from simplistic tools to seeing very nearly the instant of the expansion of the universe and down into the atom.

Belief in Arks, talking serpents, shrubbery spontaneously erupting into fire, Deities who control natural forces, etc , do not cure disease or grow crops.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Sorry, but quantum entanglement and the cosmological constant aren't chaotic at all. A present state of time exists and we are unable to observe it directly. We rely on faith that "reality" is as we perceive it to be. 

I've repeatedly tried to get it through your bonehead that religion and God are not the same thing. I even began this thread by stating this is not a theological argument. But you will not let go of that bone. Your contempt and hatred for religion is clearly an obstacle for any objectivity you may have otherwise had-- but I don't even think that's your biggest problem. You come from a generation of radical miscreants who don't believe they can possibly be wrong. This causes you to judge people and put them into bigoted little boxes.

Nothing anyone is ever going to say here will change your mind. You make that abundantly clear every day. All you are really here for is to try and shit on someone and degrade their views. You're not trying to make a point, you're trying to make a statement.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You keep referring to Postmodern as a YEC although you know full well he is not. You do it just to annoy him. You either harassment because you want to get back at his God for something or you do not like Postmodern because he is religious.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


I suspect her reason is simpler.....she only has one argument......unless she pretends everyone she is arguing with is saying the same thing she has nothing to say....thus she pretends everyone believes the same thing.......she has even called Boss a YEC.........


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


That's a function of your personal bias. You seem to have taken on that mantle of authority that afflicts the religious wherein the ideology tends to demarcate those in the "in" group and others outside of the group to be treated with disdain and suspicion. As for the self-entitled "prophet", when he states his view of the genesis fale as an accurate rendition of life's development on the planet, yeah, the label of YEC'ist fits, unless you wish to use YEV'ist (Young Earth Revisionist), wherein the bibles are selectively and capriciously edited and revised to conform to personal, tender sensibilities.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You're way too generous, Postmodern. Hollie is smart, can't deny her that. I do hate to see smart people using their intelligence to keep from hearing something they don't want to. She does change up her replies depending what will effectively aggravate the person she is replying to. Most of the time she does not have to be too creative but she can if she chooses. She either hates God for some reason, hates people who believe in God, or she just hates people in general and religious are the easiest to attack. I am guessing the first. It reminds me of when Moses is leading the congregation in the wilderness and the congregation are grumbling at Moses for lack of something, I forget what. Moses goes to the LORD and the LORD says, 'Don't take it personal, Moses. It is me they are grumbling at." I think the LORD sends poisons snakes, and then Moses lifts up the golden snake. I might be mixing up verses there though.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're obviously incensed that anyone would dare challenge your religious views. You never did respond to the challenges to your "perfectly ordered universe" when it was pointed out to you such dalliances as Shoemaker-Levy, that oops which occurred on this planet 65 million years ago, etc. 

The fact is, most of the universe is profoundly and utterly hostile to human / bioligical life. And even in this tiny corner of the universe where chance has conspired to make human life possible, the planet Earth is at best indifferent to human life, and at worst actively hostile.

It is a patently false claim of yours which you selectively cut and paste to prop up your _“finely tuned universe". _The illusion of perfection is primarily an artifact of scale (and subjective religious dogma). We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that violence and chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale. This (luckily for us) means most of us expend our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Don't be concerned with mixing up verses. Just revise, edit and manipulate the ones you like, ignore the rest. Many religionists do exactly that. However, with the three of you hurling your bibles at me, shouldn't you have at least a middling understanding of those bibles?


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


No, believing literally the "genesis fable", which I have not personally read Postmodern's take on, does not equal YEC, or YEV. It does not even imply that. To believe the world is 6000 years old one must also take the genealogies as fact and the ages of the individuals as known and a couple other assumptions. Postmodern has stated no such thing and you only use the YEC label on Postmodern because you know you will get a rise out of him. 

Yes, I will admit I have taken on the mantle of authority. I gave my background and a little bit about how I to that point. You are welcome to debate me that but you might just learn something you don't want to.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I was replying to my buddy, Postmodern, so how is that hurling a Bible at you? Learn to read. I have offered many times to hurl a Bible at you and you have yet to accept.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


I think you will find that the self-entitled " prophet" is about as literalist as they come. Why don't you take the time to have him explain his views to you regarding biblical tales and fables?

I understand you're infuriated that your proselytising has not gone as you hoped but that suggests you need a better argument.  
The contention that your particular sectarian version of gawd(s) is real and extant is an excuse to allow yourself the freedom of making unsupported assertions, not an argument. We have no reason to believe your claims of gawd(s) to be true, certainly no evidence for the claim. Most religions have no problem “conceiving” of their respective gawds, up until they reach they point where they have directly contradicted themselves. Only then do they throw up their hands in an intellectual punt and exclaim, “Well, gawds are really beyond our comprehension anyway.”


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



I totally disagree that Hollie is smart. Based on the very few times she has dared to attempt articulating a scientific point, I seriously doubt she could pass a basic high school physics exam. Her knowledge of science relies on whatever she has been told by other God Haters, and that's all that really matters to her. 

I think you are right about her being angry at God. This is the case with most Atheists. I have often said, some Atheists are bigger believers in God than some Christians.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Good tactic. Avoid addressing my refutation to your "finely tuned universe*™*" nonsense with the obligatory "you hate my gawds*™".*

A reasonable person would review the conception of gawds and resolve the contradictions by acknowledging that at least part of that conception must be false. But then again, what part of a 6,000 year old earth, talking serpents and supernaturalism could possibly be false?


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Sorry but you fail again. You are trying here to make chaos the opposite of fine tuned... it's not. Watch a football game... chaos is happening every play... bodies flying all around, crashing into one another with violence, etc. Yet, the game is very much finely-tuned, plays are designed to produce certain results, there are rules amidst the chaos.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Never discredit your adversary's abilities solely on the basis that they are your adversaries.

Atheists can not be angry with God. Agnostics can however, which I think is what you actually said.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You should consider trying out for the Olympic Swim Team - the Backstroke.

So tell us about your finely tuned universe™ in view of the chaotic nature of the universe. 

Were the gawds just late for work or too consumed with their administrative duties 65 million years ago when the fine tuned universe™ managed that direct hit on earth?


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Someday I will do just that. I do not make any far-reaching conclusions about anyone who entitles themselves a prophet. The term is actually quite nebulous. 

I have one God, my God. I have a religion of one, me. If you read my background I am hardly a Baptised-at-birth individual. I have yet had to intellectually punt. My scripture is the Old Testament of the KJV. I have recently included The Aramaic-English Interlinear Peshitta Old Testament (The Torah) Genesis to Deuteronomy by Glenn David Bauscher. Lulu Publishing. 2013. I am not sure I would call that scripture however, perhaps. I also talk with God which helps on some of the finer points.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



First of all, I can't speak for people who believe in talking serpants and 6,000 year-old earth because I don't believe that. I will get back to these people in a moment. I don't think you've offered any scientific evidence to establish humans invented the concept of God. Caveat: I mean the general concept of a spiritual power greater than self and not any specific religious incarnation. All archeological evidence shows human spirituality joined at the hip with civilization. So until you can show me the time in human history where we didn't have spirituality, I can't conclude that we invented it.

I have, on multiple occassions, posted my views that religions are the result of human spirituality and constructed by man, threfore flawed. I do not belong to a religion. I think they all have their pros and cons but it doesn't define my God. Even the word "God" might not be adequate to describe what I believe but that's the word we use. Which brings me back to your beloved YECs...

To put this in the words of your mentor, Hillary Clinton... What difference does it make? If some people believe the earth is 6k years old and God just made everything look old... how does this effect you? Do you think this causes people to think life in the womb is valuable? Are they preventing you from believing differently? Are they trying to force you to believe what they do against your will?  Because you should understand, you're never going to change their beliefs.. and certainly not by attacking those who already don't believe that.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> [No, believing literally the "genesis fable" ... does not equal YEC, or YEV.


.


> And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.




there is no basis for the above self gratifying belief that is inimical to the commandment of Remission by the Almighty for the prevailing order of expulsion for that exact insubordination as its cause.

there is every reason in Garden Earth to distrust the biblical religions. - and their pervayours.

Time is what is given to the Spirits physiology, nothing else.

.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's an old ploy of those who feel their religious beliefs are being questioned to retreat behind the slogans you have:

You hate god™,

Questioning my religion is attacking my religion™

In the words of your mentor L. Ron Hubbard, "if I can't rope em' in with my first invented religion, I'll just invent a new one".


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > [No, believing literally the "genesis fable" ... does not equal YEC, or YEV.
> ...


I tend to not go into debate about the garden of Eden, or the expulsion from, just because there is so much more to the Bible if anyone is serious about discussion the nature of God. 

I am not arguing for any religion but my own. Opening debate on a concept and then being asked to defend everyone else's religion is getting just a bit annoying. And God as he describes himself in the Bible, Old Testament, and the Garden Earth are exactly compatible.

I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Strawman. Can you reference a single post that does as you claim?


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> I think you will find that the self-entitled " prophet" is about as literalist as they come. Why don't you take the time to have him explain his views to you regarding biblical tales and fables?


easy enough....I believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1..........I believe Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:1 to be poetry, to be understood as poetry........but I am curious Hollie......I have explained this to you dozens of times.....why didn't you just tell him yourself?......


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Why straw man? It was your comment in post #449 that spoke to " hating god". Did you forget what you wrote?


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Yeah, I hit 'send' and saw your reply. Someone besides yourself. Don't play dumb to someone who just called you intelligent. And to quote my post #444, "I am guessing the first." 'Guessing' being the key word here. You will not tell us why you attack Postmodern and others. Please tell us and we can quit guessing. And you are not questioning the religion, you are attacking the person.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


.

being specific seems a one way avenue for you and your defense for other posters, you claimed the OT then it is your own religion ... ?




> I am sure you know that you mean when you say time is given but I do not. You will have to elaborate on that.



your Spirit by the Creator has been given the length of time before your physiology perishes to Accomplish Remission or it will likewise perish.

.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?



Why would god be only one of the dimensions? 

Oh, and of course we perceive the present - it is all we truly perceive.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


I addressed your "hating god" comment from your post #449.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Yes, but I said I was guessing you hated God. I was not saying you did hate God. One is an questioning while the other is an accusation. See the different? You are accused me of making an accusation which I did not. Please, do tell us if you hate God? How is it you can tell us what we think but you can't tell us what you think?


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Why would I spend any amount of time hating some invention of "god"? I no more have your gawds than I do the gawds of others. The haters seem to be angry religionists who can't force their gawds on others. Just look at the posts from the angry religionists in this thread.


----------



## Boss (May 12, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> ...



You are taking the lazy way out and not reading the thread because all of this has been discussed and explained.

"God ...is Time"  is intentionally vague... God is actually greater than time, or light, energy, space, other dimensions, dark matter, etc. Omnipotent God can create the entire universe every nanosecond in order to create a "present" which we cannot observe until physics happens.

You say that we can only perceive the present but we can't, physics won't allow it. What we're perceiving as the present has already happened and is forever in the past.

Now.. "perceptions" are funny things... we can be all over the board with what we perceive as "now."  ...I've been single my whole life but I think I'd like to marry now... do I mean immediately? Is it the same as "we need to get him to the hospital now!" And is that the same as saying "the time is now!" How about "the solar eclipse is happening now!" So, you see... our perception on "now" can vary greatly.

The Super Bowl example I presented earlier... You're watching the game happen "live" on TV, but the actual game is 12 seconds ahead because of network delay. Your perception is that it is happening in the present, even though you know it isn't. Furthermore, let's say you're watching "live" in the stadium... your perception of "present" in the nosebleed section is different than your perception of "present" on the line of scrimmage or the sidelines... light has to travel further... physics has to happen.  We simply cannot observe the present, we can only have faith in our perception which is bound to the past by physics.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


As far as I know my religion is the only one who embraces the Old Testament and only the Old Testament. Also even if there is agreement on the exact scripture(s) there can still be disagreement on the interpretation and hence different religions.

You bring up an excellent example with the Garden of Eden narrative. I do not see the actions of Adam and Eve eating of the Apple as a Remission to be paid. 

One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing. When when the LORD asks Adam what happened he says, "Eve gave me the Apple." Reminds me of when Moses comes down from the mountain and Ahron is standing there with the golden calf. Moses says, "Ahron! What in the world is going on around here! I go on a short business trip and when I come back the new CEO is a golden calf!" Ahron says, "Gee boss, the workers rose up and gave me this gold. When I threw it in the furnace a golden calf just popped out just like you see there. Let's blame the sales department." (OK, I ad-libbed that a bit.) 

Where was I? Oh yeah, Accomplish Remission. So I do not see the eating of the Apple by Adam and Eve as a sin we have to pay back. One of the biggest lesson is how a single chapter of the Bible can be represented so many ways and so influential on a culture, several cultures probably. What I see in chapter 3 of Genesis is a statement that we were in the Garden of Eden and somehow we got out. The metaphor is the Apple. A lot can be said about what the Apple represents, what the tree represents, what the Serpent represents but those are questions that for now only God knows the answers to. We should reflect on the meanings, putting it in its own context and in the larger context of the Bible. As far as a sin that must be paid back I do not get that from any other place in the Old Testament.

While I'm at it, I love the part where Moses first comes to camp from the top of the mountain. Johsua says, "Moses, our people are in trouble. Just listen to the cries of agony from the battle." Moses says, "I don't that that is battle you hear." Moses walks into camp and is just floored by what he sees. Mose's face and head turns bright, beet red. Moses lets the tablets slip from his hands and they shatter at his feet. "Ahron!!!!!!" (They should let me do a Moses movie. It would rock.)


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


But Postmodern is definitely not an angry religionist. So if you don't hate "Postmodern's invention of god" and Postmodern is obvious not an angry religionist, it must be personal. So why do you hate Postmodern so much? You don't think he is God, do you? 

I'm all for hating angry religionists, by the way. God is not some angry guy in the sky looking for sin to punish. He is looking from people who want to great things, and follow Him of course. Just look at the building of the tabernacle. God is meticulous in how he wants everything just right. Exodus 36:1 might just be the one verse that describes God the best: _Then wrought Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whom the LORD put wisdom and understanding to know how to work all manner of work for the service of the sanctuary, according to all that the LORD had commanded._ God was happy then, exceedingly happy. 

Since I have apparently just gone random here, how about a movie review? In the zombie movie World War Z (2013) Israel has walled off the zombies but because someone starts singing on a loudspeaker the zombies swam and invade. Singing is what God wants so for a movie to say signing will get you killed is the work of the devil (something like that anyway).


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



"One note from the wording given in the translation of the Peshitta I mentioned, Adam is with Eve when she ate the Apple so he knew full well what he was doing."

Not true at all. What a shame that you folks have never read the genesis fable with any interest in context. I've previously spelled out just how terribly the genesis fable self-destructs.

Lets take a look, shall we?

Genesis 2
_5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed._
________________________________________
[commentary]: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. We on the same page so far?




_16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. _
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that _evil already exists else it_ cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has _nothing to do nor any knowledge of_ either good or evil. Hence evil _must_ predate Man in order for there to be a choice.



continuing: 

Genesis 3
_1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil._
________________________________________


Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are _any_ of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. 

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly _who_ (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has not brought it into the world. 

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness"). 

For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is _not_ evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and he was told not to indulge), then he is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, must know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

Hence, things are the way they are because God wants them precisely this way and the claim that God didn't set out to create Satan on purpose is disproved. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


On the second commentary; I don't fully agree. Evil does not need to pre-date Man. The knowledge that stealing is a crime can be known before one steals. And evil might only exist outside of the Garden thereby: eat the apple, get kicked out of the garden, learn evil. I could go on but won't.

The answer is: A. An actual flesh and blood serpent

The systematic error in your evaluation is assuming absolute definitions. Does the Serpent lie? Maybe he does not 'technically' not. He, the Serpent, would have a very difficult time convincing anyone he did not deceive and tempt however. Perhaps God did create a creature that figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them. Can't think of any other creature that has done that. 

Why is something that is not evil automatically good? There are no neutral actions? I think you got to the conclusion that Evil is of God because you made everything either good or evil. Is sin equivalent to evil? Did we work that out somewhere? The Bible does not actually describe God as omniscient that I know of. You completely hacked your logic getting there so in no way can you conclude free will is illusionary. And your last paragraph also is pulled more from thin air rather than from your preceding argument.

The first few chapters of the first book of the Bible get the vast majority of the attention. I don't mean to question God but why he included Genesis for people to fight over for centuries to come I will never know.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles. 

The systematic error is not mine. I'm reading and analyzing the fable, in context, and absent a predisposition to excuse the contradictions. As to "definitions" I can only react to what is written in the bibles and what they describe. One of the most difficult things confronting apologists is their propensity to selectively rewrite the texts so as to sidestep the errors, omissions and inconsistencies. 

Why would the gawds create a creature that they must have known would have "figured out a way to get around some of the rules, or flat-out break them"? If the gawds created a creature that acted on its own volition, that would require you remove one or more attributes that are attributed to them: omniscience. Are you admitting that the gawds are not "all knowing"?

As the alleged creator of all, the gawds are thus responsible for all. As I noted in the body of the text previously,  it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless. So yes, there is a very deep flaw with the conception of the gawds. Similarly, it would be sinful of God to deceive and God by definition is sinless.

What do you think, time to rewrite the bibles?


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.


random, you apparently forgot that Holly is a literalist......


----------



## AVG-JOE (May 12, 2015)

If Momma's little bastards have a Father, His name is Time.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, according to the Genesis fable, evil absolutely does predate man. The tree of knowledge of good and evil already exists in the garden when A&E (not the cable station), arrive. You're hoping to re-write the bibles.
> ...


  Apparently. That's OK though. So am I.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I just explained how evil might not have ever existed in the Garden. Do you disagree with me? Please say how. Don't just repeat yourself that it did.
I never said God was omniscient. Please cite in the Old Testament where it states God is omniscient. In Genesis 3:9 it states: _And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?_ That hardly implies omniscience. Questions of _why_ are for God, not I.
Again, from where are you getting your assumptions? You do not know my conception of God yet. How can you say it is flawed?
Time to rewrite your programming is what I think.


----------



## Hollie (May 12, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


1. I explained how evil did exist in the magic garden before the magical creation of A&E. It's not up to me to rewrite the bibles to correct the negative implications of that scenario.

2. Omniscience is an attribute assigned to the Christians gawds As an attribute similarly assigned to many earlier gawds. If the gawds are not omniscient, that tends to dismantle their authority. Your argument for the lack of omniscience as an attribute associated with the Christian gawds needs to be taken up with Christians. Frisk them for weapons before having that conversation. Ya' never know when one of them might "do an Islam" and things could get messy.  

3. I made no assumptions about the Genesis fable. I read the fable, in context, and identified a whole host of inconsistencies, contradictions and errors that one might expect from a book written by many authors, at different times and with limited understanding of the natural world.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Exactly.

The bible is written by men, reflecting man's ignorance, fear, hate, and stupidity.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.


.
there is not a knowledge of Good vs Evil, there is one or the other ... chose correctly or perish. Remission to the Everlasting is not a gift it is the Triumph of one over the other.









the Spiritualist, the same as the time of Noah is being burned alive, the Almighty gives back to them what they take for themselves.

.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I'll give a full reply tomorrow. I was going to wait until tomorrow but I  just went outside for my nightly talk with God. Tomorrow we can continue our conversation. I hope you have a nice night and are up for some fun back and forth tomorrow. Good is so amazingly awesome that darkness does become light. You have just got to meet him some day.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 12, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes etc., none of which are _essential_ to a world created by a God. He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.
> ...



There is a third way. Have a nice night breezy.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I read your post and the thought of throwing names and even possibly pulling out one of my signature flames crossed my mind. I decided that it was late enough and there was enough stuff to reply to that I should wait until the morning coffee to put it together. Then I went out for my nightly talk with God. I walked into the backyard and there was God. No, I can not physically see him. He was immense, powerful and yet loving. Powerful enough to create a universe and yet caring enough to see how his deviate little creations are doing. Your post became as trivial as an ant chewing on my shoe, no offense meant. I am arguing with you not for my own benefit, OK, that too, but also so that you might know God, or someone who reads these posts might come to know God. Whatever grudge you are holding against God it is from your own lack of understanding.

And now:

You did not explain how evil existed in the Garden before Adam and Eve. You stated that because the apple contained the knowledge of good and evil there must have been evil in the Garden. That is a statement, not an explanation.
Again, not a Christian here, have my own religion, learn to read. How does not being omniscient dismantle authority? There is absolutely no correlation. And also again, why do you do that? What is your need to be antagonistic and just generally a nasty person?
We are still working on discovering these inconsistencies you are referring to. If you have a limited understanding of God you have a limited understanding of nature. God is the fundamental principle of nature. (And do not jump to the conclusion you just did.)


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2015)

To argue God created Evil is like arguing Light creates Dark or Heat creates Cold.  Evil is the absence of Love.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> To argue God created Evil is like arguing Light creates Dark or Heat creates Cold.  Evil is the absence of Love.


Well one could say one who created creatures with lungs and lakes created drowning. And then is the one who created drowning evil? Is that not taking the facts literally?


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



For someone who professes disbelief in god, you make a lot of false assumptions. The story in Genesis is not the literal creation point of man. It is supposedly the creation of man in God's image. There were already people on earth.. who do you think Cain married in the land of Nod?

Chances are, since you missed this key important detail, you have no clear idea of context. It's important to remember the bible was written for first-century Christians and has been through several translations. Many of the stories are not literal truth, they are presented to illustrate a certain point. One which flies comfortably over your hollow head.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



The explanation for evil existing in the biblical garden of eden prior to the appearance of A&E is identified in the genesis fable. You simply need to read the bibles. I'm offering no explanation regarding why the fable is configured as-is.


_16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. _
________________________________________
[commentary]: Very clearly here we can see that _evil already exists else it_ cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has _nothing to do nor any knowledge of_ either good or evil. Hence evil _must_ predate Man in order for there to be a choice.
Remember the foundations of the Theism--The curse of all humanity for the actions of the "first" man and woman to use their free will to gain knowledge-- The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

2. Omniscience is one attribute that humans have assigned to the gawds they have configured. Omniscient gods allowing free will is a blatant contradiction only apologists defend by ignoring the contradiction. What is the purpose of an "all knowing" god(s) who has been stripped of the "all knowing" attribute?
If your gods are all knowing, then my act of free will reduces his “powers” in some way. Good for my case of reason and knowledge – bad for you case of superstition and conjecture.


You're making your gods really quite impotent.

3. The inconsistencies of the various human configured gawds are really quite blatant. Apologists choose to ignore those inconsistencies because to address them would imply questioning their faith. 

Your partisan gawds as some claimed "fundamental principle of nature" is pure speculation, unsubstantiated assertion and uttetly unsupportable.


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > To argue God created Evil is like arguing Light creates Dark or Heat creates Cold.  Evil is the absence of Love.
> ...



Well we can get into a host of philosophical questions here.. Why would a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient God create such flawed and fucked up creatures who need redemption and can't resist temptation? Why not just create us perfect?


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


I wasn't aware that you were given authority to speak on behalf of christiandom as the authenticity of genesis as a literal or metaphorical rendering of creation. Is your authority self-assigned or do you have a Certificate of Authenticity as a registered _Babbler of Meaningless Pontification_?

Is your pith and vinegar reaction to my comments a result of you feeling slighted regarding proselytizing for your own religion of magical spirit realms?


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I never claimed to speak for christiandom. The Bible is the most read, most widely-distributed and printed book in human history... as such, I have studied it because I believe in broadening my intelligence. Nowhere in Genesis does it state God's creation of A&E was the original creation of man. In fact, if Cain was cast out of the garden for killing Abel and ended up married in Nod, there had to be other humans unless Cain married a monkey or something.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your rewriting of the bibles might be a good starting point for your new-fangled religion of magical spirit realms.


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> To argue God created Evil is like arguing Light creates Dark or Heat creates Cold.  Evil is the absence of Love.


If evil exists then God created it as everything was created by God and only God can create.


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Because your God is as powerless to create perfection as it is powerless to stop you from lying.


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You do know that they lived many hundreds of years back then, so it could have been many hundreds of years before Cain married one of his sisters who had moved to Nod hundreds of years earlier.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


_Why_ is a question for God, not I.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > To argue God created Evil is like arguing Light creates Dark or Heat creates Cold.  Evil is the absence of Love.
> ...


evil is not a "thing"....evil is an action.....this also disproves Hollie's contention that evil predates human existence, as humans acting wrong could not predate humans......


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The angel Lucifer, created by God, acting wrong predates humans.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Obviously, you've never understood the genesis fable. That's not uncommon for religious clones.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



We can continue this until you look like a complete idiot. Oops, too late. You may disagree with me but the fact you can not understand my explanation is puzzling. (Not really.) One can be locked in the kitchen with no eggs. Someone slips a recipe for omelets under the door.... Better yet; The recipe for omelets is in a sealed envelope labelled, "The idiot's guide to making omelets."...

I do not think having the power to create and destroy universes as being very impotent.
We have yet to identify the inconsistencies you keep alluding to. 
If God told me he is the fundamental principle of nature that is hardly speculation. We could get into what you believe the truth is but since you have no idea what is and isn't a lie why bother?


----------



## RandomVariable (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Now you just way over their heads.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Items 1 through 3 I've addressed and you're now reduced to juvenile attempts at insult. 

God has told me he never spoke to you regarding he being the fundamental principle of nature.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



is this your defense of the claim that God created evil?.......it doesn't change the fact that an angel acting wrong or a human acting wrong still is not God creating evil......


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


lol.....so tell us then, dear atheist, what is it Genesis tells us about disobedience?......do you find somewhere in its text the contention that God created a thing called evil and stuck it in Adam's pocket?.....oh wait.....no pockets......


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So revise your theology once again, this time that your gawds are the creators of nice things. Its those other, not nice gawds who created evil.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Admit defeat and repent.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You're not comprehending your own genesis fable. 

You need to further define which other parts of the fable you reject. Maybe outline blocks of the text you dismiss and highlight those few elements that are literal. 

An exercise in pick and choose religionism.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


The gawds have told me you misrepresented them. 

There will be holy hell to pay.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


why are you afraid to answer the question, Hollie?...


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


no revision.....it has never been a facet of Christian theology that God created evil.....that's always been an atheist's claim......


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I did answer.

Are you going to outline for us the component pieces of the bibles that are to be read as literal vs. the other kinda' true but not really true sections?

I can assist you with understanding your bibles, but you need to be as open to the concept of fat, naked babies playing harps as you are to a 6,000 year old earth.


----------



## Boss (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well now we're becoming bogged down in theological debate and that was specifically not the point of my OP, and what I had hoped to avoid. Adam and Eve may be completely symbolic and simply an easy way to tell the creation story... it depends on your faith and what you believe, I suppose. 

I'm not here to argue as an advocate of The Bible as interpreted by Christians. But I find it amazing how many self-proclaimed theological expert Atheists make such simple mistranslations and misconceptions with the book.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Your gawds creating evil is a function of the genesis fable. As you wrote earlier, you pick and choose those parts of Genesis and the bibles that you arbitrarily accept vs. the parts you arbitrarily reject. Classic pick and choose religionism. 

I suppose the nice gawds vs. those not so nice gawds who were involved with Genesis you will need to segregate into groups.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


All kidding aside there are places you should not play. You are in one of them.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



I have an entitlement, from the gawds.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 13, 2015)

> *Post:* no revision.....it has never been a facet of Christian theology that God created evil.....that's always been an atheist's claim......


[/QUOTE]
.
obviously there is a receptiveness to Evil present is all living beings, and a temptation by their Spirit that compels the requirement by the present authority (God) that it be abolished before Remittance to the Everlasting is granted - a feat God most likely accomplished for the same reason ....

in that sense Time would have a bearing but only peripheral to what constitutes a Freed Spirit and its presence.

.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I will repeat this once for you, Hollie, don't do it. As I have said if I had not seen physical evidence after physical evidence that God approved I would not be doing what I am doing. When I first started I prayed a lot for God to tell me if I was wrong. Even after that I still worried for my very soul. I am more sure of it now but even so I was talking to God less than an hour ago and praying that if I should wander to rein me in. 

God is real and you do not have entitlement. Some things can not be undone.


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It counters your claim that evil did not predate humans.
As far as God creating the evil Satan, that just is yet another example of the imperfection of God's creations.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


not at all......the actions of Satan are not the actions of human beings......human disobedience did not occur prior to the existence of humans......


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


obviously you have not....what do you find in Genesis that causes you to conclude God created a thing called "evil".....


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Your gawds creating evil is a function of the genesis fable.


explain how the "genesis fable" functions to show God creating a thing called "evil"......


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> obviously there is a receptiveness to Evil present is all living beings, and a temptation by their Spirit that compels the requirement by the present authority (God) that it be abolished before Remittance to the Everlasting is granted - a feat God most likely accomplished for the same reason ....
> 
> in that sense Time would have a bearing but only peripheral to what constitutes a Freed Spirit and its presence.
> ...


you realize that in English, none of that made sense.....did you mean to say that human beings can be tempted to be disobedient?......yes, they can.......that does not mean God created their disobedience.......


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Your gawds creating evil is a function of the genesis fable.
> ...


I wrote it out. It's in this thread. There should not be an issue for you as you have already identified various portions of the genesis fable that you arbitrarily accept and portions you arbitrarily reject.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


The gawds certainly did with the first two humans. Is that one of the portions of genesis you arbitrarily reject?


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


???....well....I asked the question on the previous page.......you have not posted an answer since I asked the question......therefore, your claim to have answered the question is a bit problematic........perhaps you should try again.....because you apparently forgot to click the "Post Reply" button when you finished.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


actually no....in this instance it isn't there to be rejected.......what is it you are referring to?......


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You'd have better success if you paid attention. Read the thread. One of the problems you're having is that with a predefined conclusion that you will arbitrarily accept some portions of genesis and arbitrarily reject others, you have difficulty making connections with what people have written out vs. what you're able to comprehend.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Your inability to read what was written out.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


don't be a chicken, Hollie....if you think you have an answer to the question just blurt it out......we won't make fun of you......much.......


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You're welcome to read what I posted in the thread. Laziness on your part is not my problem.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


are you referring to the New Revised Atheist version of Genesis 3?

3 Now the serpent  was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’ 

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,  3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” 

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When she was looking the other way God snuck up behind her, knocked her unconscious and forced chucks of the fruit down her throat.  Then he went looking for Adam and did the same.  7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked;  so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


refusing to answer is your problem.....


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


There's no such thing as revised atheist version of the bibles. Christians have quite enough versions already.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Not when I've already written out the explanation in this thread.


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Your gawds creating evil is a function of the genesis fable.
> ...


*Isaiah 45:7King James Version (KJV)*
 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 13, 2015)

The OSOTU is God...Operating System of the Universe....


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> There's no such thing as revised atheist version of the bibles. Christians have quite enough versions already.


must be......our version  doesn't have what you pretend it does......


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you haven't written out the answer to MY question.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


lol....get a more accurate translation.....
I form the light and create darkness 
I bring prosperity and create disaster; 
I, the Lord, do all these things.
Isaiah 45 NIV - This is what the LORD says to his - Bible Gateway


----------



## edthecynic (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So you can change the words to whatever you want. My translation has been the official version for 400 years, what week was yours fabricated?


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It's in this thread. You were told more than once.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


How interesting that a pick and choose religionist has pick and choose bibles.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 13, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


.


> I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.




the "honest" words of the present ruler of the Everlasting ... all hail the Almighty.      .

.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 13, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


This is where one poster will Google a term and find a single verse and claim they have understanding. Sorry to inform you of this but you have none. What makes you think you do when understanding to you is as sunlight is to a cave dweller. I will now give an explanation to which Hollie will do her thing, 'it's in the thread somewhere', Breezy will do thing, can't quite decipher that one, and eddie will do his thing, Google.

God is a terrible God. He says so. Is God a terrible God? Depends on who you are. God does evil. He says so. Does God do evil? Depends on who you are. If you have knowledge of good and evil you will know evil when you see it. If you have understanding of evil you will know who you are.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


I gave you a detailed examination of the errors, inconsistencies and fraud that litters the Genesis fable. You very nearly suffered a meltdown. 

Because you're not emotionally or intellectually prepared to confront the issues presented to you, you should consider avoiding these threads.


----------



## Hollie (May 13, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


3.5 out of 10 for silly melodrama.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Job 24:8 _They are wet with the showers of the mountains, and embrace the rock for want of a shelter._


----------



## RandomVariable (May 13, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You walk in a fog of your own vanity and arrogance. The light of others you try to dim so other can share your darkness.


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Job 24:8.1_ thou drink'eth the Kool-Aid and embrace'eth the horror for want'eth of religious fundamentalism'eth._


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


*Thomas Jefferson*

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of *Christianity* one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of *Christianity*, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short


*Regarding Government Meddling With Religion*

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." 
_--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428_

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." 
_--Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378_

"To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own." _--Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2: 546
"It is proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." 
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428 

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." 
--Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

*Regarding Religion Meddling with Government*

"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." 
--Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281

"I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." 
--Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823. ME 15:434
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." 
--Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.
"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." 
--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." 
--Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173
"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." 
--Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." 
--Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21


*Regarding Criminal Acts*

"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error." 
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market." 
--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548

"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." 
--Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration." 
--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547
*Primary Source of Quotations*


*James Madison*

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of *Christianity* been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." 
--James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance


*Regarding State Meddling with Church*

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
--James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822
"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will best be guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others."--James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty"

"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself."
--James Madison, Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."
--James Madison, Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731.


*Regarding Church Meddling with State*

"The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state."
--James Madison

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
--James Madison, 1820

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
--James Madison

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state." 
--James Madison, 1819

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
--James Madison, 1803
Sources
*http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html*
*http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm*
*http://atheism.about.com/library/quo...q_JMadison.htm*


*Thomas Paine*

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." (Richard Emery Roberts, ed. "Excerpts from The Age of Reason". Selected Writings of Thomas Paine.

*Regarding State Meddling with Church*

"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith. . . ."
---Thomas Paine, "Common Sense", 1776


*Regarding Church Meddling with State*

"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law."
--Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791

"Soon after I had published the pamphlet COMMON SENSE, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited, by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priest-craft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more."
--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794

"EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

"Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794

"The Church was resolved to have a New Testament, and as, after the lapse of more than three hundred years, no handwriting could be proved or disproved, the Church, which like former impostors had then gotten possession of the State, had everything its own way. It invented creeds, such as that called the Apostle's Creed, the Nicean Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and out of the loads of rubbish that were presented it voted four to be Gospels, and others to be Epistles, as we now find them arranged."
--Thomas Paine

*But Hey, Don't Hold Back.*

"The age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system."--Thomas Paine, 2000 Years of Disbelief

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, not by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church."
--Thomas Paine, Excerpts from The Age of Reason: Selected Writings of Thomas Paine, edited by Richard Emery Robers, NY Everybody's Vacation Publishing Co, 1945, p.342

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

"People in general do not know what wickedness there is in this pretended word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they take it for granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good; they permit themselves not to doubt of it, and they carry the ideas they form of the benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they have been taught to believe was written by his authority. Good heavens! it is quite another thing; it is a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy; for what can be greater blasphemy than to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty?"
---Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

"There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood."
-- Thomas Paine


"Yet this is trash that the Church imposes upon the world as the Word of God; this is the collection of lies and contradictions called the Holy Bible! this is the rubbish called Revealed Religion!"
-- Thomas Paine 



Sources

*http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/AOR1.html*
*http://www.atheism.org/~godlessheathen/Founders.html*
*http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine*
*http://www.thomaspaine.org/contents.html*
*http://paganinfo.50g.com/quotes.htm*
_


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 14, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


your translation contains hundreds of thousands of recognized translation errors which were corrected in the revised KJV translations....almost all of the corrections are minor.....until some weakminded atheist comes along and tries to build an entire argument on one of them......then they are minor AND amusing.....

NKJV
I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the Lord, do all these _things._’

RSV
I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe,
I am the Lord, who do all these things.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


what a fucking joke......


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


its even more interesting that you claim the Bible says something but won't point out where it says it......

and that atheists cling to quotes that everyone else acknowledge as translation errors......


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


typical atheist bible translation......


----------



## RandomVariable (May 14, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Quick! Someone find out who has high-jacked Postmodern's account!!!


----------



## RandomVariable (May 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Job 13
*7*Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him?

*8*Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God?

*9*Is it good that he should search you out? or as one man mocketh another, do ye _so_ mock him?

*10*He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons.

*11*Shall not his excellency make you afraid? and his dread fall upon you?

*12*Your remembrances _are_ like unto ashes, your bodies to bodies of clay.​


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


What do you think will be accomplished by hurling your bibles verses at me? There's a certain negative stereotype associated with frantic thumpers.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Fully agree:
_"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." _

_--Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281_

_
"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." 

--Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281_

Thomas Jefferson's statements concerning religion and criminal acts but why are you replying to me about religion and criminal acts?

_"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."_

_--James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822_
[But sometimes this is taken to mean the discussion of morality and ethics should be taken out of politics, which it most definitely should not.]

_"The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state." _

_--James Madison, 1819_​

This might be an insightful statement if it were false concerning Moses. Maybe not false but misleading. Moses is not like a Jesus or a Mo.
_"EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794_​
I would like to take a moment to examine the opening paragraph.
_"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of *Christianity* one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of *Christianity*, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
_​There is much injustice done in the name of God. I used to wonder how God could let evil be done within his own house. I understand now that God is more about finding the followers than punishing the evil doers. Fundamentalist who are pounding the table in agreement with their YouTube preacher ranting about how all homosexuals are all going to hell and ruining the country for "the rest of us" while munching down a bacon sandwich had better quit picking and choosing their Bible verses and find the real God. Just about the worse thing that could happen to this country right now is that it picks the next president based on what the majority of believers thinks God wants.


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


So, it may be that you need to duct tape your bibles together into a double-wide and go out onto the street and annoy other people.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Ruth 1
*14*And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.​


----------



## RandomVariable (May 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


My Bible fits in my pocket. It is the baggage that needs the double-wide. Come to God with an open mind and accept no man's baggage.


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


You do realize that you have become the stereotype of the unreasonable, frantic thumper. You may well be a danger to yourself and others.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?



That's clever and thought provoking. I glanced at the title about 20 times and kept wondering what the OP was going to say. I'm glad I read it and congratulations.

God could also be gravity. We can't see it, but we see how it works


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2015)

Mr. H. said:


> Time is the measurement of the motion of an object across a given space.
> 
> d (distance) = r (rate)  times t (time) i.e.. d=rt
> 
> ...



LOLz

Clapton is highly overrated.


It's 5:30 which is probably greater than the sum of all of Clapton's great solos. If you only have a 40 second attention span skip to 2:40-3:20


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> ...


Gawd could be bronchitis.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


1 Chronicles 22
*8*But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.​


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


1. Chronicles 22a
*8 thou'est shall not'est get liquored up before'est noon.*​


----------



## RandomVariable (May 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Numbers 6
*3*He shall separate _himself_ from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.​


----------



## there4eyeM (May 14, 2015)

Time to be present with God.


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


You're beyond creepy, dude. 

Enjoy your pathology. 

CYA.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 14, 2015)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


2 Samuel 6
*16*And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart.

*17*And they brought in the ark of the LORD, and set it in his place, in the midst of the tabernacle that David had pitched for it: and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD. *18*And as soon as David had made an end of offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts. *19*And he dealt among all the people, _even_ among the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as men, to every one a cake of bread, and a good piece _of flesh_, and a flagon _of wine_. So all the people departed every one to his house.

*20*Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! *21*And David said unto Michal, _It was_ before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD. *22*And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour. *23*Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.​


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2015)

Can we PLEASE stop quoting, debating and arguing Biblical Scriptures here? The thread OP specifically asks for you to check your religious beliefs at the door and consider the OP with an open mind. This is NOT a "theological" argument... YES, it's in the "Religion" forum because that is where topics about God and Philosophy go. There isn't a better alternative so this is where the thread resides. 

Like virtually every other thread which mentions the concept of God, people like Hollie are going to exploit it to turn the argument into yet another endless and pointless argument about Christianity. She knows there are Christians who can't resist the bait and the evidence is clear she is correct. So let's get the OP train back on the tracks and off this silly bantering over various interpretations of the Bible, which have absolutely nothing to do with the OP. 

If you guys wish to debate the Bible, start a damn Bible Study thread and have at it... don't hijack THIS thread!


----------



## Hollie (May 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Can we PLEASE stop quoting, debating and arguing Biblical Scriptures here? The thread OP specifically asks for you to check your religious beliefs at the door and consider the OP with an open mind. This is NOT a "theological" argument... YES, it's in the "Religion" forum because that is where topics about God and Philosophy go. There isn't a better alternative so this is where the thread resides.
> 
> Like virtually every other thread which mentions the concept of God, people like Hollie are going to exploit it to turn the argument into yet another endless and pointless argument about Christianity. She knows there are Christians who can't resist the bait and the evidence is clear she is correct. So let's get the OP train back on the tracks and off this silly bantering over various interpretations of the Bible, which have absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
> 
> If you guys wish to debate the Bible, start a damn Bible Study thread and have at it... don't hijack THIS thread!


Are you done whining about how much control I have over Christians?


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> God is a terrible God. He says so. Is God a terrible God? Depends on who you are. God does evil. He says so. Does God do evil? Depends on who you are. If you have knowledge of good and evil you will know evil when you see it. If you have understanding of evil you will know who you are.


Na 1:2 *God is jealous*, and the LORD revengeth; *the LORD revengeth, and is furious*; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> You are taking the lazy way out and not reading the thread because all of this has been discussed and explained.
> 
> "God ...is Time"  is intentionally vague... God is actually greater than time, or light, energy, space, other dimensions, dark matter, etc. Omnipotent God can create the entire universe every nanosecond in order to create a "present" which we cannot observe until physics happens.
> 
> You say that we can only perceive the present but we can't, physics won't allow it. What we're perceiving as the present has already happened and is forever in the past.



Ah, so you are speaking of principles you don't understand that have been misinterpreted by others, which you have latched on to in order to form the fallacious opinions you share here?



> Now.. "perceptions" are funny things... we can be all over the board with what we perceive as "now."  ...I've been single my whole life but I think I'd like to marry now... do I mean immediately? Is it the same as "we need to get him to the hospital now!" And is that the same as saying "the time is now!" How about "the solar eclipse is happening now!" So, you see... our perception on "now" can vary greatly.
> 
> The Super Bowl example I presented earlier... You're watching the game happen "live" on TV, but the actual game is 12 seconds ahead because of network delay. Your perception is that it is happening in the present, even though you know it isn't. Furthermore, let's say you're watching "live" in the stadium... your perception of "present" in the nosebleed section is different than your perception of "present" on the line of scrimmage or the sidelines... light has to travel further... physics has to happen.  We simply cannot observe the present, we can only have faith in our perception which is bound to the past by physics.



Grammatical semantics are irrelevant. What you perceive as you read these words is the present. Cones absorb light, synapses pass impulses, and your brain processes the stimuli to help you grasp what is in front of you.

You only perceive the present. You remember the past, with varying accuracy, and you imagine the future. But only the present is perceived.


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Can we PLEASE stop quoting, debating and arguing Biblical Scriptures here? The thread OP specifically asks for you to check your religious beliefs at the door and consider the OP with an open mind. This is NOT a "theological" argument... YES, it's in the "Religion" forum because that is where topics about God and Philosophy go. There isn't a better alternative so this is where the thread resides.
> 
> Like virtually every other thread which mentions the concept of God, people like Hollie are going to exploit it to turn the argument into yet another endless and pointless argument about Christianity. She knows there are Christians who can't resist the bait and the evidence is clear she is correct. So let's get the OP train back on the tracks and off this silly bantering over various interpretations of the Bible, which have absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
> 
> If you guys wish to debate the Bible, start a damn Bible Study thread and have at it... don't hijack THIS thread!


That's right, only YOU can comment on the bible!!!


Boss said:


> The Bible is the most read, most widely-distributed and printed book in human history... as such, I have studied it because I believe in broadening my intelligence. Nowhere in Genesis does it state God's creation of A&E was the original creation of man. In fact, if Cain was cast out of the garden for killing Abel and ended up married in Nod, there had to be other humans unless Cain married a monkey or something.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You are taking the lazy way out and not reading the thread because all of this has been discussed and explained.
> ...



What I perceive as I read these words is irrelevant to the actual moment of present becuase that moment has already happened. What we perceive as "present" is actually memory of the past and because of physics, can be nothing else. To make the statement that we can only have perception of the present shows an ignorance of what "perception" means. We can definitely perceive the past because we have a word for it... History! 

Any perception you have of "present" is already history before you realized you've perceived it... this is not semantics, it's physics. Time and physics MUST happen first. You have faith your perception of present is "observing" the actual present. This is impossible to prove. Your observation is happening in the past... after present has happened... it's already history forever... what your perception is, has nothing to do with scientific proof.

We cannot, as humans functioning in a physical universe, observe the moment of present or future time. That is the profoundly deep point the OP is making.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 14, 2015)

The profoundly deep point of human existence is that there is no other meaning to 'present' than consciousness, and being conscious is being so now.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> The profoundly deep point of human existence is that there is no other meaning to 'present' than consciousness, and being conscious is being so now.



But physics doesn't support your argument.  I can look into the skies and see a distant star "now" but am I observing the present? What if we are not conscious? Does Time stop happening? Is there not a present time? What if I am dreaming I am in Paris in the Winter of '72? Is THAT the present time? If you are watching the sunset in Hawaii and I am watching a meteor shower in Alabama, is our perception of "present" the same?


----------



## there4eyeM (May 14, 2015)

You speak as if there were an objective reality, as if 'physics' existed apart from we humans. All these things are concepts, approximations created out of our intellect, limited and aided by our perceptions and how they function.
'Now' is where we are. The past is memory, and not the truth. The future is an idea, and only imaginary. 

That leaves only now.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> You speak as if there were an objective reality, as if 'physics' existed apart from we humans. All these things are concepts, approximations created out of our intellect, limited and aided by our perceptions and how they function.
> 'Now' is where we are. The past is memory, and not the truth. The future is an idea, and only imaginary.
> 
> That leaves only now.



What IS "objective reality?"  "Now" is NOT where we are because if so, we'd all perceive the same "now" and we don't. Everything we have perception of is memory of the past and can be nothing else because of physics. You cannot observe the instant of the present in the moment of the present.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 14, 2015)

But we DO all experience the same now!


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> But we DO all experience the same now!


And just how many examples do you need that we don't? As a matter of fact, none of us experience the same now.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 14, 2015)

Our personal experience of it may be different, though we'll never know that for sure. 
Everyone is experiencing the same moment, now.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Our personal experience of it may be different, though we'll never know that for sure.
> Everyone is experiencing the same moment, now.



Again, no they are not and yes we most certainly know.

First and foremost... "Now" is an ambiguous term that can mean almost anything or any frame of time. I gave examples earlier... Now is the time to elect a Republican president... I am ready to retire now... We need to get to the hospital now... he died just now... it's 3:15 right now. All mean something entirely different. 

I gave you an anlogy earlier of being at the Super Bowl. Someone who is sitting in the nosebleed section is not experiencing the same "moment of now" as someone on the sideline. Light reflects off the players and has to travel further to the nosebleed section, so what they perceive as "now" is happening later than for someone watching the same player on the sideline... this is physics. 

We know for certain that our experiences of now are different because even if you and I are sitting beside each other experinecing the exact same thing, your "now" includes me but my "now" includes you. They are therefore, NOT the same.

What we experience as "present" is a perception which happens in the past. It cannot happen in the present because physics and time have to happen first.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 14, 2015)

All you've explained is that perceptions are at work. Perceptions are one hundred percent subjective, so almost certainly different from every other sentient being's. The only thing we have to perceive, and the only time we have to perceive it, is in the now.
Playing with the poetic meanings of a word is not addressing what has clearly been intended in this thread.


----------



## RandomVariable (May 14, 2015)

Until everyone agrees on the definition of the primary terms, such as time and perception, this will be endless talking in circles. But screw it, It's a message board!


----------



## theword (May 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'm not compelled to explain how light works. It's obvious you don't understand what physicists don't understand. Physicists don't understand


Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I know what you're trying to say but what you don't understand is that there's no such thing as time. Time is only observed as each picture is observed that gives us the sense of motion. All we ever see is one picture at any given moment, which is always the present. We can't possibly observe the past or present unless our Creator gives us some past or present pictures to observe, which is something I have experienced many times.

Think of us watching a movie from film, which are still pictures strung together and observed at 24 frames per second. This gives us the sense of motion as we observe the movie, even though all those pictures were filmed in the past. However, the past, present and future all exist in that film that you can store on a shelf. As you watch that movie, all you can observe is the present picture, even though it is also the past and present as it sits on that shelf. You don't even need a projector to look at the pics on film. You can observe the pictures backwards or forwards but only one picture at a time. This means you can only observe the present picture, no matter how long ago it was formed on film.

What we observe in this world isn't something outside of us, meaning there is no real universe. Everything we observe has already been programmed long before we observe it and contained as waves ( stored information ). The past, present and future exists in these waves ( information ), which can't be observed until this information is processed for us to observe a picture. If it would be possible for us to stop this flow of information like we can with a movie projector, you would be observing one picture, which would be the present picture. It would be impossible to see the next picture or the one before it, which would be the past picture.

This means we're always observing the present picture despite all the rest of the pictures that exist in that program that contains the past, present and future pictures as only information.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2015)

theword said:


> I'm not compelled to explain how light works. It's obvious you don't understand what physicists don't understand. Physicists don't understand



Hold on... Physicists DO understand light travels and that what we "see" is reflection of light which has travelled. Do you have anything to offer which contradicts this or not?


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> All you've explained is that perceptions are at work. Perceptions are one hundred percent subjective, so almost certainly different from every other sentient being's. The only thing we have to perceive, and the only time we have to perceive it, is in the now.
> Playing with the poetic meanings of a word is not addressing what has clearly been intended in this thread.



What you seem to not be grasping is, our 'perception' isn't relevant. We can't OBSERVE the present. 

I am not playing with words or poetic meaning of words, whatever the hell that meant, I am explaining that the instant we perceive as "present" or "the now" or whatever term you wish to apply to that instant, is unobservable to humans. Before we can observe it, physics has to happen and time has to pass... this means, ANYTHING we perceive is already in the past. The only perception humans have is of time passed.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2015)

theword said:


> I know what you're trying to say but what you don't understand is that there's no such thing as time. Time is only observed as each picture is observed that gives us the sense of motion. All we ever see is one picture at any given moment, which is always the present. We can't possibly observe the past or present unless our Creator gives us some past or present pictures to observe, which is something I have experienced many times.
> 
> Think of us watching a movie from film, which are still pictures strung together and observed at 24 frames per second. This gives us the sense of motion as we observe the movie, even though all those pictures were filmed in the past. However, the past, present and future all exist in that film that you can store on a shelf. As you watch that movie, all you can observe is the present picture, even though it is also the past and present as it sits on that shelf. You don't even need a projector to look at the pics on film. You can observe the pictures backwards or forwards but only one picture at a time. This means you can only observe the present picture, no matter how long ago it was formed on film.
> 
> ...



Why do you keep explaining this like I don't get it? I fully understand the concept you're talking about and it has nothing to do with my argument... this makes the third time I've tried to explain that to you. I am not contradicting what you're saying here but it just doesn't relate to what I am saying. 

The "present picture" you're observing has already happened and you couldn't possibly observe it when it happened because physics and time had to transpire first. Just as you don't see a movie or film until light travels through the film and gets projected on the screen, bounces off the screen and travels to your eyes, then is computed by your brain... all that didn't happen instantly. It took time for light to travel.. it seemed like "now" to you, but it wasn't. 

The physical fact is, we are NOT always observing the present, we can't observe the present. We have a perception which relies on faith.


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not compelled to explain how light works. It's obvious you don't understand what physicists don't understand. Physicists don't understand
> ...


But physicists know that time is independent of sight, as was already pointed out to you.


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> The physical fact is, *we are NOT always observing the present*, we can't observe the present. We have a perception which relies on faith.


The physical fact is, the present does not depend on being observed to exist and thus requires no faith.


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> If you are watching the sunset *in Hawaii* and I am watching a meteor shower *in Alabama*, is our *perception of "present" the same*?


Your perception of WHERE is different, but the present, which is not a perception but a slice of time, is the same.


----------



## theword (May 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not compelled to explain how light works. It's obvious you don't understand what physicists don't understand. Physicists don't understand
> ...



We don't see reflected light at all. Light is actually information in the form of waves. These waves have to be processed along with the waves that form the objects for us to observe a picture. We observe waves of information, not actual moving objects. These waves of information are like observing a cinema film, one picture at a time at a fast enough rate to make objects appear to move. Light isn't something that moves. It's observed one picture at a time at a very fast rate that we call the speed of light. There are physicists who understand this now.


----------



## theword (May 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > I know what you're trying to say but what you don't understand is that there's no such thing as time. Time is only observed as each picture is observed that gives us the sense of motion. All we ever see is one picture at any given moment, which is always the present. We can't possibly observe the past or present unless our Creator gives us some past or present pictures to observe, which is something I have experienced many times.
> ...



We are not observing light bouncing off of objects. We are observing processed information which includes light information to give us the illusion of an object being illuminated. We can simulate this with computers today. Light is only information and nothing else.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > theword said:
> ...



Where the fuck did I say sight and time aren't independent? This sounds like your classic tactic of trying to twist my argument around intp yours and claim you are making the argument I presented. You know I don't let you get away with that, Eddy.

Yes, all we can ever see is the result of time passed. We cannot see the present.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2015)

theword said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > theword said:
> ...



Still irrelevant. You can't see anything until physics happens and time passes, it's impossible.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 14, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Time is the measurement of the motion of an object across a given space.
> ...


Hey! do you know what you are?
You're an asshole!

Ram it up yer poop chute.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2015)

theword said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > theword said:
> ...



Well, I disagree with you but still.. information has to travel and be received then processed. The "illusion" is already part of history before your brain is aware of it. You aren't explaining anything that refutes my point.


----------



## edthecynic (May 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> We cannot see the present.


As pointed out over and over, the present does not require that it is seen to exist.


----------



## Boss (May 14, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We cannot see the present.
> ...



Exactly. But many things exist without being seen. If it cannot be directly observed, it can't be tested, evaluated or measured. It's impossible to observe the present. The very best we can ever accomplish as physical beings is perception of time which has already passed. The laws of physics can't be denied.


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's only impossible in your version of of a reality where one or more gawds =time. There is an instantaneous perception of "now", the present.

You can invent your own version of _The Physiques of Boss'ism_ if you wish, it just doesn't make it true.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 15, 2015)

There is only one thing that cannot be denied, consciousness.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > theword said:
> ...



Except, nothing about perception of any kind happens instantaneously. You perception of "now" takes time and physics happening.  I can look into the sky at a distant star... now... this very moment... my perception is of the star hundreds of years ago, I can't observe the star in the actual present, it may not even exist anymore. I'm in the present, I'm looking at the star, it appears in my present but what appears is the light from hundreds of years ago.

I'm not the one trying to invent my own version of physics here, that's you, Hollie.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> There is only one thing that cannot be denied, consciousness.



This has nothing to do with the OP argument. You are merely substituting 'consciousness' for 'perception' as if changing the words somehow lends credibility. Your consciousness is dependent upon time and physics happening first.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 15, 2015)

The only thing you are saying is that you are conscious, have perceptions, and by those means have come to be convinced of the principles of physics that you re-state.


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Except that there certainly is an instantaneous perception of time. It's called the present. Something as simple as a photograph is an instantaneous capture of a moment in time.

Your attempt at analogy with light from distant points in space is really pretty silly. Our perception of that light is an instantaneous moment in time as those photon particles reach our location in space.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> The only thing you are saying is that you are conscious, have perceptions, and by those means have come to be convinced of the principles of physics that you re-state.



I think most people who aren't retarded or illiterate understand we have conscious perception of a physical universe in which laws of physics apply. What I am saying is, our perceptions of "present" are happening in the past and must happen in the past due to laws of physics. We can't observe the actual present anymore than we can observe the future.


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing you are saying is that you are conscious, have perceptions, and by those means have come to be convinced of the principles of physics that you re-state.
> ...


Your theory is bunk. As demonstrated over and over and over and over ..

The present is proven, it requires no faith.

Also - experincing the present is most definitely possible, and done. 

The present internally (biologically) is when youre experiencing the near past (external past), the moment you percieve it is the biological present.

Youre perceiving light that happened already.

But the moment you percieve it, is internally the present. Real time. The light is the past, the biological function of percieving the light is present.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



A photo is a record of something in the past. It was already in the past before the camera lense opened to record it. It also took time for the camera to record something... that didn't happen instantly... even with an instamatic!

My example of light from a distant star is not an analogy. It is my point being magnified so dummies like you can hopefully understand. Nothing you can observe is happening "now" because it already happened.Your observation is the result of time passing and physics happening.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



So you're basically agreeing that my point is valid but since you don't want to admit that, you'll just invent dual "presents" and label them 'biological' and 'external' to sound like you said something smart.

You cannot observe the actual instant of present time. You can say that's bunk, you can stomp your feet and throw fits, make circular arguments, deny physics, proclaim things science doesn't support, call me names, huff and puff, hiss and snort... doesn't really matter to me. What you are perceiving as "present" is already forever part of the past. It was part of the past before you could perceive it.

If you cannot observe it, you can't evaluate, test or measure it...therefore, you cannot prove it scientifically.


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


A photograph was a capture of an instantaneous moment in time. We are now viewing that moment from the perspective of an event that occurred in the past. 

The problem you have with understanding these concepts is that you have preconceived and preconfigured your argument from a fundamentalist religious position god=time*™ *and like your other threads, your proselytising.


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You can stomp your dumbassery as well, but that doesnt change anything. 

Your entire being has only ever been in the present. 

That you percieve things later means the things youre percieving are in the past, but the moment youre percieving them is the actual present. 

I know that the utter destruction of your nonsense really damages the "boss" ego and all, but its that very ego that stifles your ability to grow and learn.


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


".... You can say that's bunk, you can stomp your feet and throw fits, make circular arguments, deny physics, proclaim things science doesn't support, call me names, huff andpuff, hiss and snort..."

Gawds be praised. The above describes the behavior of the religious fundamentalist - god=time*™* (what a gawd-awful argument), who is not winning converts.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No photograph is a capture of an instantaneous moment. ALL photographs take some amount of time to capture and can't be captured without time happening. Back in the early days of photography, that "instantaneous moment" might take 10 minutes to record... it's why no one smiled in photos back then.

Everything you view is an event which already happened and is in the past.


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Which doesnt mean it takes faith to believe in the present.

When youre observing the past, youre IN the present. If youre not, theres no you, theres no observor to observe said past. 

Your cheap philosophy class in middle school fucking failed you, REALLY bad.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 15, 2015)

Can you argue that you have anything other than perceptions by which to apprehend?


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



The moment you are perceiving them is already in the past. The actual present is something we cannot observe directly. This doesn't have a thing to do with my ego. If you think I need to learn something, feel free to teach me... but we're not going to deny physics.

"your entire being has only ever been in the present."  ....Stupid beyond recognition.  So I've never existed in the past?


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


"Ive never existed in the past?"

Is whats dumb.




Further - WHEN do you percieve the past? Answer that. For that question alone exposes the bunk that is your theory.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 15, 2015)

What does 'Yahweh' mean (in English).


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I think the difficulty you're having is that your view of physics is colored by your fundamentalist religious beliefs. 

Quite clearly, we cannot take a photograph now, of a moment in time that existed in the past because that time has come and gone. What we photographed was an instantaneous moment in time that is now in the past.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



It requires faith to believe "the present" is actually as we observe it (in the past) to have been. Has to require faith because science can't evaluate what can't be observed. Even your awareness of self in the present is already history before you can perceive it.


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Drool tards levels of fucking dumb.

WHEN do you percieve?


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Ah. So when your argument crumbles, retreat to the sole purpose of this thread:  proselytising.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Well I don't have any religious beliefs, nor have I argued any. You cannot make any photo without time. Sorry! We cannot take instantaneous photos, even the fastest shutter speed takes time. The moment captured was already in the past and forever part of history before the first photon of light hit the camera lens.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 15, 2015)

Perceptions are processed in the brain in the present.


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You don't have - not arguing religious beliefs?

God=time*™ *suggests differently. You make references to "god" when your arguments are refuted. Its a Hail Mary tactic.


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Can you percieve your death in the past? Of course not, the dead brain doth not percieve.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I've repeatedly said that "perception" is not part of the debate. Perceptions vary from one individual to another and none of us have identical perceptions of reality. Perceptions can be all over the board. Some claim they have perception of the future... others might have the perception they are in the jungles of Vietnam in 1968... still others may be comatose and have no perception whatsoever.

Back to the star example.. I have perception of a star in the sky... it's there, I can see it and it's in what I define as the present... but what I have perception of may no longer exist in reality because I am seeing the star from hundreds of years ago. My perception is NOT reality of the present.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



God is spiritual, not religious.


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Can you percieve your death in the past? Of course not, the dead brain doth not percieve.


I wouldn't be so quick... Oh never mind.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Perceptions are processed in the brain in the present.



lmfao... so the present sits around waiting for our perceptions to process?


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Of course. Gawds have nothing to do with religion.


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Perception has nothing to do with your argument that we cant percieve the present?

Lol tell me more, Einstein.


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Perceptions are processed in the brain in the present.
> ...


Umm...no that went over your head

The point in time of the processing IS the present.


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Perceptions are processed in the brain in the present.
> ...


Not at all. The past just waits around until the present passes by.


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

The past cannot be observed without a present.

If the past is being observed, its observance proves a present. 

Wicked hard, I know.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I've never said we can't perceive the present. I said we cannot observe the present. Our perception of present is happening in the past because physics and time must happen first. We rely on faith that the present is how we're perceiving it.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> The past cannot be observed without a present.
> 
> If the past is being observed, its observance proves a present.
> 
> Wicked hard, I know.



Circular reasoning does not a scientific argument make.  Wicked hard, yes indeed!


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Betcha $100 you said just that.

Faith has nothing to do with the existence of the present.


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The past cannot be observed without a present.
> ...


Sorry bud, that was not the TAG argument.


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So religion is a requirement for perception.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



Processing is an action which necessarily requires time, therefore, cannot be the instant of present.


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > We only perceive the present. That is the only 'time' that ever is.
> ...


***cough...cough....***


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Its not simply a perception - its something that we measure that exists in reality that weve given a name to.
> ...


And that boyhood logic is why I think you play fake smart on the internets.


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Oh good gawd. Not the TAG argument....


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


"Ive never said we cant percieve the present"

"It is impossible to percieve the present"


Same goofy poster talking himself into circles playing pretend philosopher to fill the void of insecurity his lack of true faith in god provided him.

But im no psychologist.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



You have a cold or something? I know you think you've found a "gotchya" here but you haven't. We can have what we believe (have faith) is a perception of the present, but it is a false perception because it's physically impossible to observe the present. Our only perception is of time passed. We have it... we recognize it as present... we rely on faith that our perception confirms it.


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Here come the moonwalks.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I've not made the TAG argument. WHY are you now trying AGAIN to turn the thread into Bible study?


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Oh no, the employment of capslock. Real serious trouble now!


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



We can perceive any goddamn thing we want to!


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Here come the moonwalks.


Michael Jackson returning from the dead, moonwalk.. which we perceive in the past.


----------



## Hollie (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Except the present.


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Not according to your former self on like page 3 of the thread we cant!!!


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Again, you are trying your best to take me out of context by manipulation. I don't play those games. You have made no point except to show what an ass you can be. And your good buddy Hollie is here to slap you on the back and laugh at your lame jokes. You are truly one of the most pathetic trolls at USMB.


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

Trolls? Youre trolling our intelligence by making two blatantly contradictory statements in order to advance your narrative at 2 different places within the conversation. 

Sorry player, thats red handed.

If you werent a narcissist, youd admit it, take the L on the chin, and keep it pushing. Onto your next fake smart idea to push god.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Trolls? Youre trolling our intelligence by making two blatantly contradictory statements in order to advance your narrative at 2 different places within the conversation.
> 
> Sorry player, thats red handed.
> 
> If you werent a narcissist, youd admit it, take the L on the chin, and keep it pushing. Onto your next fake smart idea to push god.



I have not made any contradictory statements, you're simply taking parts of statements out of context to construct a contradiction.

My narrative doesn't need advancing, it has yet to be challenged. We are unable to observe present time directly. The laws of physics prohibit it. We only have a perception of time which has passed and is forever history. I don't care if you don't like it or can't comprehend it. You can quote me out of context, flood the thread with stupidity and outright lies about what has been said, you can ridicule me and call me names or pretend my arguments have failed... doesn't matter, physics still prevails... we cannot observe the moment of present reality. Our perception relies on faith.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> I can't observe ... the actual present - -
> 
> I'm not the one trying to invent my own version of physics here, that's you, Hollie.


.
oh, not at all an egocentric declaration of ones personal physiology - in this case (obviously) void of an individual Spirit.

.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 15, 2015)

Nothing has been proved about when consciousness occurs. It has not even been admitted by the poster that consciousness may not be limited by what is understood by physics, though physicists do consider that possible.
And for all the mentions of 'God', whoever and whatever that may mean, the Biblical 'name' for God has not been addressed, either. If one is saying, "God is time" in a conversation with people in our culture, one must either use this reference from the Bible or establish a new one.
"Yahweh" more or less translates into "I Am" in English. This is just about universally accepted by experts. 
Not "I Was".


----------



## G.T. (May 15, 2015)

G.T. said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Not out of context. 

Entire quites.


----------



## Boss (May 15, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Nothing has been proved about when consciousness occurs. It has not even been admitted by the poster that consciousness may not be limited by what is understood by physics, though physicists do consider that possible.
> And for all the mentions of 'God', whoever and whatever that may mean, the Biblical 'name' for God has not been addressed, either. If one is saying, "God is time" in a conversation with people in our culture, one must either use this reference from the Bible or establish a new one.
> "Yahweh" more or less translates into "I Am" in English. This is just about universally accepted by experts.
> Not "I Was".



Well, you are wrong about consciousness. We know when it occurs, how it occurs, what causes it to occur. We also know light and electricity travel which requires time. These are all supported with science and physics.

As for "What is God?"  ...that's not the point of the OP.  We can collectively agree that any belief in God requires faith. So the questions as to the specifics of such are ambiguous. If you read the OP, this is articulated in better detail. I am not making yet another theological argument for God. What is the point of that? 

The OP is discussing "God" the concept, a derivative of faith and belief in something we can't observe. Like present Time.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing has been proved about when consciousness occurs. It has not even been admitted by the poster that consciousness may not be limited by what is understood by physics, though physicists do consider that possible.
> ...


.
this happens to be in the religion and ethics forum ...



> "I Am"



the above is a reference to all freed Spirits, Admission to the Everlasting - accomplishable by life within Garden Earth post their physiological demise ... the OP would have one believe the Almighty is blind without a physical brain - and refuses to address the subject of what actually is the observer irregardless the observed. 

Time nor Gravity = / = Spiritual constraint.

.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 15, 2015)

"We" do know all this about consciousness? A link would be very interesting to see. Otherwise, you are just blowing this off because it absolutely goes against your pet concept and insistence.

To use your inferred definition of 'now', it doesn't exist. If there is no now, there cannot be a past or future. The existence of now, on the other hand, does not require that past or future exist, and in fact they don't exist the way now does. They are now places we can be. We can only be now.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 16, 2015)

...sorry, should read, "they are not places we can be"...


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> "We" do know all this about consciousness? A link would be very interesting to see. Otherwise, you are just blowing this off because it absolutely goes against your pet concept and insistence.
> 
> To use your inferred definition of 'now', it doesn't exist. If there is no now, there cannot be a past or future. The existence of now, on the other hand, does not require that past or future exist, and in fact they don't exist the way now does. They are now places we can be. We can only be now.



First of all, I am not obligated to give you links to common knowledge. You can Google ":human consciousness" and find thousands of links detailing all we know. To pretend we are mystified by how our brain forms conscious thought is ridiculous. 

I didn't infer a definition of "now" and was the one who pointed out that "now" can  be completely ambiguous. I prefer to avoid the word "now" in this discussion because of the implied ambiguity. My phrase has consistently been "the instant of present time."  

As for your circular reasoning (if there's a past and future there must be a present)...this is not scientific evidence. _If there is a universe and life there must be God...._ see how that worked? So circular arguments are pointless in this debate. Besides, I never said there wasn't a present, only that we can't observe it. I have faith there is a present like I have faith there is a God. 

Now you keep wanting to say that we only have awareness of the present but we've already established through physics that what we experience as present has already happened and is forever in the past before we can even perceive it. So I hate to be a stickler about it but NO, we don't have any awareness of present, we have a perception after-the-fact, it's all we can have because of physics. Before anything "in the present" can be perceived by humans, physics and time have to transpire. The instant of present time is elusive. It's beyond our physical ability to observe and we must rely on our perception which happens in the past due to physics. 

What this leaves us with is FAITH in a present that we cannot observe. Like God.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 16, 2015)

Your faith is in the past.
My presence is now.


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> ...sorry, should read, "they are not places we can be"...



I'm sorry... I was in North Carolina yesterday, I clearly remember it. I think I even took some pictures. Are you now telling me I wasn't ever there because it's today? This doesn't even make rational sense. 

The only true perception we have is of the past. Physics and time have already happened before our brain can process the information. We cannot observe the present, we can only have a perception and faith in that perception.


----------



## theword (May 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The illusions are the past, present and future. This is why God can show me pictures of the future that hasn't happened yet. All we can observe is the present picture at all times, no matter if it's a picture from the future or one from the past.

You simply don't know how God created everything.


----------



## theword (May 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



When you listen to physicists instead of the voice of God, you can expect to remain thoroughly confused. Physicists do not understand how we were created or how life is experienced.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 16, 2015)

You are, thus, stating that you have faith we cannot be in the present. Fair enough. 
My perceptions are in the present and may even be said to be the present. That is not faith, that is what I perceive.


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2015)

theword said:


> The illusions are the past, present and future. This is why God can show me pictures of the future that hasn't happened yet. All we can observe is the present picture at all times, no matter if it's a picture from the future or one from the past.
> 
> You simply don't know how God created everything.




*All we can observe is the present picture at all times, no matter if it's a picture from the future or one from the past.*

You're contradicting your own statement here. A picture from the past or future is not the present. All we can observe is the past. You're saying we observe the present picture always but that is not true. We can't observe the present, ever... because physics has to happen and time has to happen. What we perceive as the present is something that has already happened and is forever in the past. I have faith my perception confirms the present but I cannot observe the present so I can't prove it. There is no difference between this and faith in God. 

*You simply don't know how God created everything.*

Well the thread and my OP argument have nothing to do with how God created things. But for the record, I disagree with this as well. Science is totally about showing us how God created things. What we truly don't know is WHY. I can explain to you HOW gravity works, I can't explain WHY gravity exists.


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> You are, thus, stating that you have faith we cannot be in the present. Fair enough.
> My perceptions are in the present and may even be said to be the present. That is not faith, that is what I perceive.



I did not say that I have faith we cannot be in the present. It's a matter of physics that we cannot observe the instant of present time. Physics has to happen, time has to pass, then we have a perception of something. Does our perception of "the present" conform to what "the present" actually is? We can't know this without observing the present directly and we can't because of physics and time. 

What you perceive relies totally on faith.


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2015)

theword said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



This isn't about how life was created or how we experience life. It's also not a pissing match between my God and your God. This isn't a theological argument.

I am not the least bit confused, we simply cannot observe the moment of present time because physics has to happen first, which means time has to pass first. Once time has passed it's no longer the instant of present, it's forever in the past. What we perceive as the present is already in the past, we rely on our faith in the perception we have of something that already happened and is forever in the past. 

Now... We ASSUME the present is as we perceive it but we cannot observe the actual instant of present time, it's not possible because physics and time must happen first. If you can wrap your mind around this, then it's possible that the thing we perceive as "the present" is a creation by the Almighty Creator who is not constrained by limitations of physics and time. In essence, God is constantly creating the entire physical universe every nanosecond for us to perceive. We can't observe it because we're humans bound by physics and time.


----------



## Hollie (May 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > The illusions are the past, present and future. This is why God can show me pictures of the future that hasn't happened yet. All we can observe is the present picture at all times, no matter if it's a picture from the future or one from the past.
> ...


How does science show us how your supernatural gawds used supernatural means to create everything?


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > theword said:
> ...



Well God is not "supernatural", Hollie. No more supernatural than the instant of present time. We're just unable to observe God directly and must rely on faith. 

Supernatural things are outside the parameters of nature but God is part of nature. You just choose to call it "supernatural" because you're not enlightened. Much the same thing happened to Louis Pasteur when he discovered microbial life. People said that was "supernatural" and there was no way that such a thing existed. When _Dr. Semmelweiss_ suggested that surgeons should wash their hands to keep from spreading germs, people said this was "supernatural nonsense" and locked the man away as being crazy. 

You proclaiming something is "supernatural" doesn't mean a damn thing. It's just you making noise and being unable to support your noise.


----------



## Hollie (May 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Odd that you're rattling on about noise. I hear a lot of noise about your gawds but you're never able to make a case for their existence. It's just so convenient that you use the weasel of "faith" as a requirement to experience your gawds because as we know, your gawds, like all the other claims to gawds are always conveniently beyond the ability of the religionist to demonstrate. 

That's interesting because like the typical religious extremist, you will require the mechanisms of science to disprove your gawds. You will use the "you can't prove it isn't" claim as somehow supporting your case for the existence of your particular supernatural realms inhabited by supernatural gawds.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 16, 2015)

Are you even listening to yourself?
"God is part of nature"? 
If 'God' exists, it is nature that is part of 'God', and God is the very definition of 'Supernatural', being above and beyond mere nature.
Your arguments and position are not a matter of faith, simply semantics. Now is the only time any action can happen. It has no dependence on the delay in time that may occur to perceive it. When it is perceived, the perception happens in the now.


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Odd that you're rattling on about noise. I hear a lot of noise about your gawds but you're never able to make a case for their existence. It's just so convenient that you use the weasel of "faith" as a requirement to experience your gawds because as we know, your gawds, like all the other claims to gawds are always conveniently beyond the ability of the religionist to demonstrate.
> 
> That's interesting because like the typical religious extremist, you will require the mechanisms of science to disprove your gawds. You will use the "you can't prove it isn't" claim as somehow supporting your case for the existence of your particular supernatural realms inhabited by supernatural gawds.



Well that's the point of the OP.  Faith is required to accept that "the present" is as we perceive it to be. We can't observe the present just like we can't observe God. It's not about "convenience" it's just how physics work in a physical universe. It's about the difference in what we perceive and what we can observe directly. 

You're hung up on religious incarnations of God which I can't speak for or make any claims for. You also seem to be hung up on the notion that your perception of the present is happening instantly without time or physics... quite stupid, but that seems to be your belief. You don't seem to grasp that light has to travel, the brain has to compute, it doesn't all happen instantaneously. By the time you've perceived the present it is already in the past and has been there a while. Physics had to happen, light had to travel, time had to pass. You simply cannot observe the present.


----------



## Hollie (May 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Odd that you're rattling on about noise. I hear a lot of noise about your gawds but you're never able to make a case for their existence. It's just so convenient that you use the weasel of "faith" as a requirement to experience your gawds because as we know, your gawds, like all the other claims to gawds are always conveniently beyond the ability of the religionist to demonstrate.
> ...


We actually can observe the present. You object to that because your perception of time and reality is skewed by your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

We obviously can observe the present but your perceptions of the various gawds you have created are yours alone. There is no reason to accept that your gawds have any connection to time, space or contingent history. Like the typical religionist, you insist that your gawds are real and extant to the exclusion of other gawds, who's promoters similarly dismiss your gawds while insisting their gawds are the true gawds.

Why are the gawds of others true and yours, not so much?


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Are you even listening to yourself?
> "God is part of nature"?
> If 'God' exists, it is nature that is part of 'God', and God is the very definition of 'Supernatural', being above and beyond mere nature.
> Your arguments and position are not a matter of faith, simply semantics. Now is the only time any action can happen. It has no dependence on the delay in time that may occur to perceive it. When it is perceived, the perception happens in the now.



I read everything I post before I post it, so yes... I am listening to myself. 

"Supernatural" is just a word we use to describe something not defined by nature. Why it's not defined could be because we've not discovered it yet. 

Now you can keep repeating the same thing over and over again, it's just not relevant. "Now" is not a time. "Now" can mean all kinds of different things, I've presented numerous examples to demonstrate this, so why are you STILL claiming it means something specific? Is my demonstration not getting through or something?  "Now is the time to vote for a Republican" ...does "now" mean the instant of present time?  No, it clearly does not! We can't vote right now, we have to wait until November on election day. As anyone with a functioning brain can see, the word "now" doesn't mean the instant of present time. In fact, it can mean any number of things depending on the context in which it's presented. 

Yes, a perception happens, but "happens" means it took time. Even a retarded person should understand that nothing can "happen" unless time also happens. Are you having trouble comprehending that? Nothing you can perceive happened instantly, it's not possible because of physics. Things that "happen" take time, including your processing of information which gives you the perception of present time. Your perception, therefore, is based solely on FAITH. No different than any faith in God which you also cannot observe directly.


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> We actually can observe the present.



No we can't because it's impossible due to physics. You cannot explain how we can observe the present, only how we can perceive a perception of the present which already happened.


----------



## Hollie (May 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > We actually can observe the present.
> ...


Yes we can because nothing in physics prevents that. The problem you have is that your understanding of physics must be modified as needed to accommodate the supernatural intervention of your gawds.


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> We obviously can observe the present...



No we can't and your insisting that it's obvious is not Science, Hollie. It's impossible for us to observe the present moment of time, no matter how much you think we can or presume we do. ALL your perceptions REQUIRE time and physics to happen. This has nothing to do with my spiritual viewpoints it's pure unadulterated physics.


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yes, everything in physics prevents us from observing the instant of present time. Before we can perceive anything, time has to happen. I'm not modifying anything, you are. You are trying to say that light doesn't have to travel, we see it instantly. That is physics illiteracy in a nutshell. We know that light travels, we know the speed of light. We also know that nothing can "happen" without time passing... not in a physical sense, anyway.


----------



## Hollie (May 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I think the physics information you get from creation ministries is intended to cater to a specific audience. I can understand that you have an emotional attachment to your arguments involving gawds but you shouldn't let emotional/religious biases color your argument.


----------



## Boss (May 16, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I don't get information from any ministry or religion, Hollie. What I presented is physics, not theology. There is no emotional attachment on my part, although you seem to be emotively connected to ignorance of physics. I'm sorry you're stupid and this is flying over your empty head, I wish I could explain it where you could understand but you have to first understand how physics work and you don't seem to know. Since you are over your head in a science debate, you want to turn the thread into a theology debate, specifically the Christian theology, which you seem to have a particular disdain for. I'm not letting you do that and it's frustrating you, so you're now calling me names and inferring lies about what I've posted. 

I'm sorry that I'm not a Christian you can get all worked up and angry over silly shit you say. The tactic just doesn't work on me because I'm not a Christian and not religious. You can keep trying it and I'll just keep putting you in your place, exposing you as the liar you are, and continue to make my argument which you've not refuted. Now... you can either grow the fuck up and discuss the thread OP, you can fuck off and find another thread where your tactics work, or you can just keep on blathering like the idiot you are about something you don't have a clue about and I'll keep exposing you as the fool you are. It really, honestly, does not make two shits worth of difference to me what you do.


----------



## Hollie (May 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your insistence that God=time is certainly theology. When you insist that your position is tied to supernatural gawds, you certainly are appealing to religion / theology. You seem to be confused by the disciplines of science vs. claims of supernaturalism. 

Aside from your frantic, chest-heaving insistence that you have put anyone in their place, that's quite in contrast to the reality of your bogus statement god=time of that perception of the present in in violation of some inside physics that remains a "law" only in some alternate reality I abutted by you and your conception of supernatural  realms. 

This is yet another thread wherein you attempt to connect your invention of gawds and supernatural realms with elements of science and theses threads always fail.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 16, 2015)

.
the OP is claiming his " God " communicates through a physiological brain ... or that the Spirit uses " grey matter " but may not understand the present wheresas his God can.

nothing more than a moralist (biblical) mentality, also based on, " Only God knows for certain " ... the same as the Time theory of " not knowing ".

obviously lacking in the art of Completion. 

- is the reason behind the Faith Based Mentality - do not let yourself or anyone else learn the Truth or reach the Apex of Knowledge.

.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> the OP is claiming his " God " communicates through a physiological brain ... or that the Spirit uses " grey matter " but may not understand the present wheresas his God can.



Boy you must be reading a different OP because mine doesn't make any argument claiming anything about anyone's God. I haven't said a word about communicating with God or physiological brains or grey matter.... that's all you, bucko. 

I didn't say anything about "not understanding" the present. I said that humans can't observe the moment of present time. That remains a true statement that hasn't been refuted. We can play these silly games where you all post total fabrications of what you wish I had said or whatever the hell you call yourself doing... I don't really see the point in that. 

Is there some reason none of you can discuss the actual OP and topic? Why do you all keep trying to derail the thread or turn it into a theology debate? It's getting frustrating.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Like I said, you're a dummy. You don't understand basic physics. There is no way to communicate with you because you're unable to comprehend the most simply scientific principles. All you know how to do is attack _Krishtuns_.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> This is yet another thread wherein you attempt to connect your invention of gawds and supernatural realms with elements of science and theses threads always fail.



But this thread hasn't failed. You're still responding and so are others. In fact, this thread has had more replies than the last 20 threads you've posted, combined. Your threads fail, sweetheart, mine are epic. 

The argument submitted in the OP has not been refuted and it can't be... it's bulletproof. Time and physics must first happen before humans can experience perception. There is no work-around, that's a fact of life and physics in a physical universe. Our perception of "the present" is happening in the past, the present has already come and gone before we can perceive it. We rely on faith... the same faith we have in God... that our perception of the present is accurate.


----------



## Hollie (May 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Typical, frantic reaction when you're arguments are shown to be fraudulent .


----------



## Hollie (May 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > This is yet another thread wherein you attempt to connect your invention of gawds and supernatural realms with elements of science and theses threads always fail.
> ...


Of course the thread has failed. You have been proselytizing for your religion by trying to connect physics with some claim that we must have religious faith in the present. 

It's silly and pointless.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 17, 2015)

The argument has been constructed in such a way that it is seemingly irrefutable. Words can be arranged that way. By defining the present as something that cannot be perceived, of course it is impossible to be in the present. 
What has not been accepted by others is exactly that definition. 
For me, what is in my mind now is and must be the present. The terms 'present' and 'now' are otherwise meaningless.
Furthermore, to propose the 'God' is time is to, again, nullify the meaning of terms. For 'God' to be 'God' means that Being must be beyond any creation, which time itself must be.
These you refuse to address since you are not in a religion, yet you play with the term 'God' as if it could be divorced form religious concepts and reasoning.
The thread may be a success to you, but you have established only your determination to maintain your position.


----------



## Carla_Danger (May 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > This is yet another thread wherein you attempt to connect your invention of gawds and supernatural realms with elements of science and theses threads always fail.
> ...




So, the success of a thread depends on the amount of replies? The more replies, the more factual it becomes...mmmmmm.  I'll try to remember that.

I guess 9-11 was an inside job....smh!

WTC building 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## theword (May 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > The illusions are the past, present and future. This is why God can show me pictures of the future that hasn't happened yet. All we can observe is the present picture at all times, no matter if it's a picture from the future or one from the past.
> ...



I can tell you why gravity exists but only if you can believe it. You don't believe in the information God has given me about how we're able to see things so most likely, you won't believe in anything I share with you.

Gravity exists because God created this illusion to make us feel secure while walking on this earth. We won't need gravity in the next age because we will have the ability to float or fly in our new visions and dreams that he has already designed for us.


Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > The illusions are the past, present and future. This is why God can show me pictures of the future that hasn't happened yet. All we can observe is the present picture at all times, no matter if it's a picture from the future or one from the past.
> ...


----------



## theword (May 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You have made this into a pissing contest because of your lack of belief in what our Creator has revealed to me. He's the one who created everything, not physicists.


----------



## Carla_Danger (May 17, 2015)

theword said:


> I can tell you why gravity exists but only if you can believe it. You don't believe in the information God has given me about how we're able to see things so most likely, you won't believe in anything I share with you.
> 
> Gravity exists because God created this illusion to make us feel secure while walking on this earth. We won't need gravity in the next age because we will have the ability to float or fly in our new visions and dreams that he has already designed for us.







If you're really serious, you'll start taking harp lessons to get more prepared.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> The argument has been constructed in such a way that it is seemingly irrefutable. Words can be arranged that way. By defining the present as something that cannot be perceived, of course it is impossible to be in the present.
> What has not been accepted by others is exactly that definition.
> For me, what is in my mind now is and must be the present. The terms 'present' and 'now' are otherwise meaningless.
> Furthermore, to propose the 'God' is time is to, again, nullify the meaning of terms. For 'God' to be 'God' means that Being must be beyond any creation, which time itself must be.
> ...



Well... You can ignore physics and presume that what you are perceiving as reality in the present didn't have to arrive in your brain and be processed, but we know that isn't true. No one is rearranging any words or specially constructing an argument, it's all basic physics. 

As for God and religion, there is no reason God must be tied to a religion. I am a Spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God but I don't belong to any religion or adhere to any religious dogma. I think all religions are inherently flawed as creations of man. 

In the context of the OP title, it has been explained this is intentionally allegoric. The point is, the very same faith we have in "the present" is no different than faith in God. If "the present" exists in a state which we cannot observe, test, evaluate or measure, then so can God. we know by the principles of physics, the instant of present time is beyond our ability to observe.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 17, 2015)

There is no 'faith' in perception, just perception.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



When did someone say a thread becomes more factual the more replies it has?  

I presented an argument in the OP, if you want to challenge it's validity, you need to submit a counter argument. Popping in to say you reject the OP is not an argument.


----------



## Hollie (May 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your usual "...... because I say so" commandment is hardly an argument.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> There is no 'faith' in perception, just perception.



Again, you are factually incorrect. Perception simply cannot happen in the moment of present time, it's dependent upon physics happening and time passing. You must have faith that the perception you have of present time is accurate. You can't prove that it is anymore than you can prove God exists, it relies on faith.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



I don't say so, physics says so.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 17, 2015)

A final, parting statement; arguing that what is going on in a person's mind now is not now is absurd.


----------



## Hollie (May 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What physics? Is _religious fundamentalist physics _a new branch of the other physics?


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2015)

theword said:


> I can tell you why gravity exists but only if you can believe it.



When I say that we can explain how gravity works but we can't explain why it exists, I am speaking of science and physics, not theological opinions. I don't really give two shits what God told you, it means absolutely nothing to me. Your God could tell you that you need to kill 3,000 people by flying planes into buildings and that you'll be rewarded with virgins in heaven. 

I have explained the thread OP is not a theological argument for a theological God. I am using God as a generic placeholder for the thing humans have faith in which is greater than self. All Gods require faith, as does our perception of the moment of present time.


----------



## Carla_Danger (May 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Your argument means nothing. The amount of responses mean nothing.

Gawd is time, gawd is love, gawd is this flower I'm holding in my hand, gawd is nature, gawd is vengeance, gawd is mercy, gawd is whatever you create him/her/it to be.


----------



## Carla_Danger (May 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





This thread reminds me of some New Age Spirituality, inspired by kooks like Edgar Cayce, where they practice the art of rubbing magic crystals together.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> A final, parting statement; arguing that what is going on in a person's mind now is not now is absurd.



We've already covered "now" and how it can mean totally different things. Did you not read what I wrote? Look... just bowing up and saying things are "absurd" without offering anything more, is not ever going to pass for debate. 

Whatever is in your mind as "now" or the moment of "nowness" or "present time" or whatever way you wish to define the instant we all acknowledge as "the present"  ...is something that took time to get there and be processed into a perception by your brain. You cannot have a perception of "now" any other way. 

This is not "absurd" at all...  it's _physics_ and I am shocked at how many morons don't comprehend it. We cannot observe the moment of present time, we only have a perception which we realize in the past, after the present is gone forever. Nothing can "happen" without time... light has to travel... neurons have to send electric impulses... you cannot perceive it until these things "happen" which requires time... which means time has passed and is no longer the present. This is as simple as it can be explained and anyone with a basic understanding of physics can comprehend. 

What is "absurd" is how some of you think all you need to do is balk, reject and ridicule... and that is supposed to mean something to anyone other than yourself. Your opinion that I am being "absurd" in my well-grounded physics argument and $3 will buy you a Starbucks.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Your argument means nothing. The amount of responses mean nothing.
> 
> Gawd is time, gawd is love, gawd is this flower I'm holding in my hand, gawd is nature, gawd is vengeance, gawd is mercy, gawd is whatever you create him/her/it to be.



Well, Hollie claimed my thread failed, but the measure of any thread is the number of views and replies. I merely pointed out that my thread had not "failed" by established parameters for measuring success of threads on any forum. In contrast, this thread has more replies and views than the combined total of her last 20 threads.  That's not about the argument, it's about the success or failure of the thread as a thread. 

Now, it just so happens that my argument was bulletproof and no one has been able to refute it. Oh, they have rejected it, refused to try and counter it, attempted to change the subject numerous times, interjected emotive opinions... but the point of the OP still stands irrefutable.

In your final paragraph, all you are stating is that God relies on faith. I have no problem with that. My OP doesn't challenge it or try to establish scientific proof for God. The belief in God certainly requires faith and God is whatever you believe God is. So is the instant of present time.... that's the OP argument. We have a perception of present time, we cannot observe it. We rely on our faith in what we perceive to be reality in the present. Nothing is perceived instantly without time happening... it defies physics.


----------



## Hollie (May 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Your argument means nothing. The amount of responses mean nothing.
> ...


The thread _has_ failed. This thread like your others has been a vehicle for your proselytizing as a way to promote to your version of some new fangled religion. As a L. Ron Hubbard wannabe, yeah, the thread fails. 

Your insistence of some new fangled version of physics as supporting your argument for religious faith being required to perceive the present, well, yeah, that argument is absent support so yeah, that was a failure also.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > the OP is claiming his " God " communicates through a physiological brain ... or that the Spirit uses " grey matter " but may not understand the present wheresas his God can.
> ...


.


> Well... You can ignore physics and presume that what you are perceiving as reality in the present didn't have to arrive in your brain and be processed, but we know that isn't true. No one is rearranging any words or specially constructing an argument, it's all basic physics.




a few posts back I clearly asked if you are stating that physics has observed the Spirit employing a brain to decipher the present - or physics is able to observe a Beings Spirit ?

*God... Is Time. *

that is the title of your OP - it is an oxymoron if a Spirit is not the same ... moron.




> *B:* I said that humans can't observe the moment of present time.



again - - "humans" refers to their physiology - that is not true of the Spirit. the pursuit of the Everlasting is not the goal of a persons physiology, there is a difference between science and religion.

.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Well no, the thread hasn't failed by any standard we measure threads on forums. The argument presented in the OP has not been refuted and there is really no counter argument. You keep wanting to talk about religion and I am not religious so I can't talk to you about that, except to say the thread is not a religious argument and this isn't a theological discussion. I've not promoted any new religion or "newfangled physics" with anything I've presented in this thread. 

If you comprehend that light has to travel and anything that "happens" requires time, then it's clear you can understand that our perception of the present isn't happening in the moment of the present. I don't need newfangled physics, just the regular kind. We rely on faith that the moment of present is as we perceive. Because of physics, it is impossible for us to observe the present. 

Faith is faith is faith... there is no special "religious" faith which has it's own rules. To have faith is to believe in something not observable, testable or measurable. It applies to God and it applies to the Present.


----------



## Boss (May 17, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



I can't comprehend what you post because you are speaking in incomplete sentences and thoughts which trail off into other ideas or topics. I have no idea what you're talking about most of the time. 

I've made no arguments about physics being able to observe spirit. I don't know where you got that but it wasn't my argument and the OP doesn't mention it. I've not claimed there is no difference between science and religion... again, don't know where that came from but it wasn't from me or the OP. So you seem to be asking me questions related to a phantom OP that doesn't exist in reality, where I said all kinds of crazy-ass shit you disagree with... that's all I can figure.   

"God... Is Time" is the allegoric title I chose for my OP.  I've already explained I am not talking about the Abrahamic God of Moses or any other religious incarnation of God. I'm also not talking about the myriad of various contextual meanings with regard to "Time." More specifically, I am talking about the instant of present time, which we cannot observe as mortal human beings in a physical universe.  We rely on faith the present is as we perceive.


----------



## Hollie (May 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


What is it that you think hasn't been refuted?

You've offered nothing but "you have to have faith, you have to believe in god" as a means to present an argument you claim is supported by physics. That's a pointless argument because there are any number of gawds to believe in and you have not identified which of the gawds we must believe as a precondition to accepting your claims.

Absent religious belief in one or more gawds, we must believe in gawds which you have yet to establish and some new fangled physics you're unable to define. This thread is another bust, just as your earlier threads were.

You seem not to understand that these threads you open all have a similar theme: they all require a predefined belief in a version of gawds that are unique to your new fangled religion and you never make a defendable case for those gawds.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> I've made no arguments about physics being able to observe spirit.


.
speaking of incomplete sentences ...

that is my argument, the Spirit of any being is what resides in the present time and as most would believe is not decipherable by physics.

does the present time matter to a heart rate - no. we can agree to that.

you have not defined your meaning - God ... is Time

whatever that means, it must also mean Life (Spirit) is time also as they are inseparable, God = Life = Present Time.

.


----------



## Boss (May 18, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What hasn't been refuted is that humans cannot observe the present. I don't know why you continue to claim I am trying to use some "newfangled physics" here. Things like the speed of light are not exactly "new age" sweetie. 

*You've offered nothing but "you have to have faith, you have to believe in god" as a means to...*

I have a problem with you misquoting me and attributing things to me that I never said. Where did I state that you have to believe in anything? Even in my "other threads" which have nothing to do with this thread, I have never said you have to believe in anything. 

Science operates on known principles of physics. People who understand physics are aware that things cannot "happen" without time. It's not dependent upon whether you believe that or not, it's a principle of physics. You are perfectly free to denounce belief in physics and dance around naked in the street like an angry chicken. 

Perceptions happen, thus take time to happen, which means perceptions are not happening in the instant of present time. We cannot observe the instant of present time. In order to observe the instant of present time, we'd have to defy physics. We only have perception of something that already happened and is forever in the past.


----------



## Boss (May 18, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I've made no arguments about physics being able to observe spirit.
> ...



1) My sentence is complete. 

2) Never said spirits cannot reside in the present, or that physical things don't reside in the present. Physics prohibits physical beings from observing the moment of present time. 

3) I've explained (several times) that my thread title is intentionally allegoric. In those explanations I presented my definitions of both God and Time. 

4) Heart rates do not have human emotions so nothing "matters" to a heart rate. 

5) *God = Life = Present Time *is not a true statement. _*God > Everything*_.


----------



## Muslim75 (May 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?


 
It is inappropriate and blasphemous to call God "time". God is, by the way, above any form of humanness. Any given human being is born, passes through childhood, youth, adulthood and old age. At the time he reaches old age he is a completely different human being than the one he was at age 4. God has changed him. Hence in Islam, we say that "God is the Time", not "God is Time".


----------



## Boss (May 18, 2015)

Muslim75 said:


> It is inappropriate and blasphemous to call God "time". God is, by the way, above any form of humanness. Any given human being is born, passes through childhood, youth, adulthood and old age. At the time he reaches old age he is a completely different human being than the one he was at age 4. God has changed him. Hence in Islam, we say that "God is the Time", not "God is Time".



With all due respect to your personal religious beliefs, I am not here to proselytize for any religious belief. The OP examines the human attribute of *faith*... belief in what is unobserved. We have a perception of what "present time" appears to be, that is all. We can't confirm it because we can't physically observe the moment of present time. Our perception is a byproduct of time which already passed and is no longer in the present. 

We're all physical human beings, bound by the laws of physical nature. This is the limitation which keeps us from ever observing the moment of present time. We can only have faith that it exists, it cannot be observed directly, we rely only on our perception of the evidence. The same is true for God. 

What God IS or what God does... that's a different topic. I've made no claims, I boast of no inside knowledge. As a devout Spiritualist, I believe in a power greater than self and connect with it regularly. That power is MY God. I have enough knowledge to understand this is essentially the basis for any incarnation of God, regardless of attached religious dogma. But for the sake of the OP argument, the definition of God is inconsequential. Faith is required to believe in God, just as faith is required to believe the present exists as we perceive it to be.


----------



## theword (May 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> theword said:
> 
> 
> > I can tell you why gravity exists but only if you can believe it.
> ...



I know you don't give two shits what God told me. I didn't think you would. However, I do know how he created everything and that includes what scientists think they understand.


----------



## theword (May 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


  : :

I don't who "physics" is or ever heard him speak.


----------



## Yarddog (May 18, 2015)

skye said:


> Time does not exist
> 
> How can  so called God be time
> 
> we worms crawling  here on Earth  can not understand our Infinite Eternal Source FATHER




God may not be Time per se,  but I think its part of the equation if there is one,  you may also throw in Origin. 

I think i would put origin in there because there are pieces of matter floating around space through  time,   

Time, origin, intent?    there may be something besides the vastness of space that we cant even perceive,

somehow they threw it all together though and got an espresso machine out of it ,   so maybe there is intelligent 
design .......


----------



## Yarddog (May 18, 2015)

Boss said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Time does not exist
> ...




I think if time did not exist,  then matter could not exist.  matter would be the proof that time exists.    then again without matter, maybe time would not exist as well


----------



## Boss (May 19, 2015)

Yarddog said:


> I think if time did not exist,  then matter could not exist.  matter would be the proof that time exists.    then again without matter, maybe time would not exist as well



Wouldn't matter what "existed" without time, it would be impossible to perceive it. This is not like closing your eyes and holding your breath, pretending time doesn't exist. Literally nothing would/could  be relevant without time.


----------



## Boss (May 19, 2015)

Yarddog said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> > Time does not exist
> ...



Time is the only thing that really matters to physical beings. Matter can exist, not exist or be dark matter... likewise with gravity, energy and light. However, none of them can "exist" in any fundamental way without time. 

This is not an argument regarding origin or intent. Both are great topics, I have nothing against them but this thread is centered on faith and physics. Most people who reject God will run to Science and claim they can't have faith in something they can't observe, test and measure. However, every mortal human being for all of creation does this every second of every day and always has. We are unable to observe the moment of present time. We assume it is happening because we have a perception of it happening, which comes to us after the fact, in the past. We depend on sheer faith that "the present" is as we perceive it to be... because we can't physically observe it directly.


----------



## edthecynic (May 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> We cannot observe the present, we can only have a perception and faith in that perception.


So if you break your leg skiing, you can only know by faith that at some present time in the past you broke your leg.


----------



## Boss (May 19, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We cannot observe the present, we can only have a perception and faith in that perception.
> ...



If you break your leg, the moment you realize you've broken your leg is not the present. It can't be because of physics. Time has to happen for you to have perception or have any realization whatsoever. You can make cuckoo faces at that if you like, it's basic physics. 

What's really sad is this is coming from a person with an observatory as his avatar. You'd think someone like that would realize the concept of physics... light you perceive from distant stars is coming to you from the past... you are literally observing the star as it appeared hundreds of years ago... in order to see what the star looks like in the present, you'll need to live hundreds of years. 

Everything you have perception of took time to happen, therefore your perception cannot be in the present time. If you look at yourself in the mirror, that is a reflection of how you appeared in the past, just a fraction of a second ago. Light had to travel, physics had to happen, then you could perceive something.


----------



## Boss (May 19, 2015)

Here's an astrological event you're probably familiar with, Eddy.  It shows a bunch of science geeks sitting around a monitor watching the comet Shoemaker-Levy crash into Jupiter. They consider themselves watching it as it happened. This was how the news reported it and science journals accounted it... but what they are viewing had already happened some 23 minutes before. It was impossible for them to view the event in real time because light had to travel, signals had to be processed, physics had to happen. Even if they had been watching the event from a space ship orbiting Jupiter, light still had to travel, physics still had to happen. It wouldn't have taken 23 minutes, it would have been much quicker but it's impossible for anyone to have observed it happen in the present time. 

As mortal human beings living in a physical universe, we are bound and limited by physics. For anything to "happen" takes time, thus the present time is elusive. We can only have a perception of present which arrives in our brains after it has already happened and is forever in the past. I'm not sure why you brain is not absorbing this basic physical fact... maybe your ego can't handle being mortal? Perhaps it exposes the ignorance of you believing yourself to be your own God? Whatever is the case, it seems to be causing you to get surly and rude toward me.


----------



## edthecynic (May 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


All that has nothing to do with your stupid claim that faith is required to know that there was a present time when you broke your leg because you did not perceive it the instant it happened. You may still be unconscious from your fall, but that does not change the fact that at some present time in the past you fell and broke your leg. That is the physics of reality and it takes no faith to know that there was a present time when you broke your leg.


----------



## edthecynic (May 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Here's an astrological event you're probably familiar with, Eddy.  It shows a bunch of science geeks sitting around a monitor watching the comet Shoemaker-Levy crash into Jupiter. They consider themselves watching it as it happened. This was how the news reported it and science journals accounted it... but what they are viewing had already happened some 23 minutes before. It was impossible for them to view the event in real time because light had to travel, signals had to be processed, physics had to happen. Even if they had been watching the event from a space ship orbiting Jupiter, light still had to travel, physics still had to happen. It wouldn't have taken 23 minutes, it would have been much quicker but it's impossible for anyone to have observed it happen in the present time.
> 
> As mortal human beings living in a physical universe, we are bound and limited by physics. For anything to "happen" takes time, thus the present time is elusive. We can only have a perception of present which arrives in our brains after it has already happened and is forever in the past. I'm not sure why you brain is not absorbing this basic physical fact... maybe your ego can't handle being mortal? Perhaps it exposes the ignorance of you believing yourself to be your own God? Whatever is the case, it seems to be causing you to get surly and rude toward me.


Again another moronic example that has nothing to do with faith. There was a present time when the comet crashed even if no one perceived it.


----------



## Chalgoum (May 19, 2015)

The Last News ....


Planes fly within walking distance of the Earth Find Yourself


----------



## Hollie (May 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> Here's an astrological event you're probably familiar with, Eddy.  It shows a bunch of science geeks sitting around a monitor watching the comet Shoemaker-Levy crash into Jupiter. They consider themselves watching it as it happened. This was how the news reported it and science journals accounted it... but what they are viewing had already happened some 23 minutes before. It was impossible for them to view the event in real time because light had to travel, signals had to be processed, physics had to happen. Even if they had been watching the event from a space ship orbiting Jupiter, light still had to travel, physics still had to happen. It wouldn't have taken 23 minutes, it would have been much quicker but it's impossible for anyone to have observed it happen in the present time.
> 
> As mortal human beings living in a physical universe, we are bound and limited by physics. For anything to "happen" takes time, thus the present time is elusive. We can only have a perception of present which arrives in our brains after it has already happened and is forever in the past. I'm not sure why you brain is not absorbing this basic physical fact... maybe your ego can't handle being mortal? Perhaps it exposes the ignorance of you believing yourself to be your own God? Whatever is the case, it seems to be causing you to get surly and rude toward me.


Gee whiz, bossy. That tends to refute your previous  thread of proselytizing for your gawds who magically configured the "finely tuned universe".


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> All that has nothing to do with your stupid claim that faith is required to know that there was a present time when you broke your leg because you did not perceive it the instant it happened. You may still be unconscious from your fall, but that does not change the fact that at some present time in the past you fell and broke your leg. That is the physics of reality and it takes no faith to know that there was a present time when you broke your leg.



What do you mean by "know there was" a present time? How can you know something you cannot observe? Forget about broken legs and things that are 'realizations' and think in terms of physics and what is happening in a physical reality. There is no "present time in the past" there is only passing of time. Present is the word we use to define the moment of present time. Everything before that is future, everything after that is past. There is no "present time in the past" ...it's oxymoronic. We have a perception of the "present time" but because of physics, it arrives to us in the past. 

Think of present time like a needle on a phonograph. It rests in the groove of the record and as the record turns the needle passes over ridges and bumps to interpret a sound. The sound is our perception and the turning record represents time passing. If the record player is stopped with the needle still in the groove, it can't interpret the ridges and bumps any longer so there is no sound produced. What is immediately beneath the needle may be very important information, but there can be no perception of it until there is time. Now... if we could slow down physics and see what happens with a record on a phonograph, we could see that the ridges and bumps immediately beneath the needle are not in sync with the sound we are hearing. Physics had to happen. The needle had to send the impulse to the stylus, it was transmitted as an electrical signal to a processor which had to convert the signal into something that could be amplified into sound. All of it took time to do and the end result was a perception of sound emanating from the record needle in the past.  The needle has already moved on and a new "present" exists. 

So.... Explain how we can believe in something that we cannot observe?


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> How can you know something you cannot observe?


Even a blind man can know he broke his leg.

Again the physics of a present time has nothing to do with "perception." The present time exists independent of any perception of it. That is physics. Please show the Law of physics that requires perception for t = 0.


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> So.... Explain how we can believe in something that we cannot observe?


Blind people believe there is firm ground under their feet though they have never observed it.


----------



## Muslim75 (May 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> Muslim75 said:
> 
> 
> > It is inappropriate and blasphemous to call God "time". God is, by the way, above any form of humanness. Any given human being is born, passes through childhood, youth, adulthood and old age. At the time he reaches old age he is a completely different human being than the one he was at age 4. God has changed him. Hence in Islam, we say that "God is the Time", not "God is Time".
> ...


 
Both Christianity in Islam ascribe sacredness to time. But saying that "God is time" is great blasphemy. What should be said is "God is The time", as it is said in Islam. Traveling used to take years, now it takes hours. God has enabled it; God is The Time.

To people who believe in an Almighty God, God is a Being with a will, not a concept.


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > How can you know something you cannot observe?
> ...



I didn't say a present time didn't exist. If t = 0, then perception = 0. 

Present time exists and we are unable to observe it. You can't even break your leg in present time. It is an action and requires time to happen. You certainly can't break your leg and realize it in the instant of present time. What part of this is flying over your head? Do you think the instant of present time stops and waits for things to happen? Where is your physical formula for that? 

All we can really say is, IT APPEARS a physical reality is happening in the moment of present time. We ASSUME the results of our perception is correct. Due to the constraints of physics we are unable to observe the  moment of present directly. We rely on faith.


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > So.... Explain how we can believe in something that we cannot observe?
> ...



Yes, but you are now conflating "sight" with "observing" and they're not the same thing. We can observe lots of things we cannot see. The bigger point is, we cannot observe anything without time happening.


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2015)

Muslim75 said:


> Both Christianity in Islam ascribe sacredness to time. But saying that "God is time" is great blasphemy. What should be said is "God is The time", as it is said in Islam. Traveling used to take years, now it takes hours. God has enabled it; God is The Time.
> 
> To people who believe in an Almighty God, God is a Being with a will, not a concept.



I have already said this is not a theological or religious  debate. It doesn't matter to me what your God says or what your religion considers blasphemy. So you can continue to try and turn the thread into another pointless theology debate and I'll continue tell you this is not a theological argument. Sorry!


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> You can't even break your leg in present time.


Did the bone break the present moment the bone snapped or the past moment you became aware of it after you woke from your coma?
The present time is completely independent of any and all perception according to physics.


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And nowhere do those observations require faith.


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You can't even break your leg in present time.
> ...



Well the bone can't break without time passing as it breaks. When it is in the process of breaking, an action is happening, it requires time to pass and physics to happen.  What part of this don't you get? Nothing happens instantaneously without time, even the splitting of an atom takes time. And since EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS takes time, it is impossible for us to observe the moment of present time. 

*The present time is completely independent of any and all perception according to physics.*

Why are you now trying to present MY argument as your counter argument?  Strange!


----------



## G.T. (May 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yet physics doesnt rely on faith to know that present time exists....because physics is not a god drama queen.


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



But we cannot observe the moment of present time. We only have faith that it exists as we perceive it after the fact, in the past. We are not able to observe the present directly because of physics. Time has to happen for us to have a perception. Our faith is based solely on the perception of a reality we realize. Is this true, false, different?  We don't know, can't confirm it if we can't observe it.... like God.


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Again GT... Physics is what prevents you from observing the moment of present time. I have not said that present time doesn't exist... why do you all keep making that same error? The only way we have to know that it does exist is Faith. We have faith in our perception which appears to be reality in the present, but it can't be... physics doesn't allow it to be. Time has to pass for things to happen.


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> I have not said that present time doesn't exist... why do you all keep making that same error? The only way we have to know that it does exist is Faith. We have faith in our perception which appears to be reality in the present, but it can't be... physics doesn't allow it to be. *Time has to pass for things to happen*.


Is that a a statement of faith or physics?


----------



## G.T. (May 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Youre circle jerking. 

Its a pointless cherade bc i can then say "do you have faith in physics?"

If you do, physics shows that present exists.
If you dont, your commentary about perception is meaningless.
..



At the end of the day, there is FAR more proof in a present than evidence in a god. 


The amount of faith theyd require if one even delved into your circle jerk is eons apart. Not comparable. Not even close


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I have not said that present time doesn't exist... why do you all keep making that same error? The only way we have to know that it does exist is Faith. We have faith in our perception which appears to be reality in the present, but it can't be... physics doesn't allow it to be. *Time has to pass for things to happen*.
> ...



Is there anything in physics that contradicts this?


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



The only _PROOF_ of a present is the evidence of perception we have occurring in the past. We cannot prove that which we cannot observe... this is the science argument against God, remember? 

There is no circle jerk or charade happening, I am trying to teach physics to a bunch of morons, apparently. I've tried a number of analogies, tried rephrasing things in ways you could better understand, and at this point I am thinking, if you can't comprehend that humans can't observe the present moment of time, you're just retarded or something. 

You say really stupid shit, like "FAR more proof in..." What the hell does that mean? Proof is when you've PROVEN something!  Do you mean _Evidence_? We have just as much evidence for God as physical reality. You choose to ignore the evidence and claim God can't be real because you can't observe, test or measure God.  The same applies to the moment of present time. You can't observe it, you can't test it, and you can't measure it. Before you can even perceive it, the present has passed.


----------



## G.T. (May 20, 2015)

No, we have no evidence for god. Zero. Because correlation does not equal causation. The reasoning being used wpuld be circulat, as always.

And youre not teaching physics to anyone when youre degreed in downs syndrome. Trust me.


----------



## Boss (May 20, 2015)

G.T. said:


> No, we have no evidence for god. Zero. Because correlation does not equal causation. The reasoning being used wpuld be circulat, as always.
> 
> And youre not teaching physics to anyone when youre degreed in downs syndrome. Trust me.



Again, there is plenty of evidence for God. There is no _PROOF_ for God. If correlation does not equal causation, how are you certain the causation of your perception of present time correlates with actuality?  

Once again, because you are so slow, I will make the point... Human beings are unable to observe the moment of present time due to physics. Everything we are able to perceive depends on time happening. We have FAITH that a present does exist and our perception of it is an accurate representation. We can't prove that it is or isn't because we can't observe it to evaluate. 

If you believe the present exists as we perceive it in the past, then congratulations... you are a human being practicing FAITH in your beliefs. You are proving that things CAN exist beyond our ability to observe, test or measure.


----------



## Hollie (May 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > No, we have no evidence for god. Zero. Because correlation does not equal causation. The reasoning being used wpuld be circulat, as always.
> ...


What evidence is there for any of the gawds and in particular, your invented gawds?


----------



## edthecynic (May 20, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So you are saying it is NOT a statement of faith.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 20, 2015)

.
the OP refuses to realize the human Spirit is not bound by physics any more than he claims for his god. 

dictating physiology as an anchor around his neck is a personal problem for the OP the same as his refusal for someone's ability to surmount the Apex of Knowledge and graduate to a higher level.

the OP offers at best a dead end, relying on faith not action for his sustenance.

.


----------



## Boss (May 24, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> the OP refuses to realize the human Spirit is not bound by physics any more than he claims for his god.
> 
> dictating physiology as an anchor around his neck is a personal problem for the OP the same as his refusal for someone's ability to surmount the Apex of Knowledge and graduate to a higher level.
> ...



Nowhere was it ever stated the human spirit, or any other spirit was bound by physics. Nor are claims of God or anything else, bound by physics. No one dictated physiology or whatever other wackadoodle allegations you make of the OP.

You are a butt-hurt Liberal goofball who doesn't like ME because I am a Conservative. So you have committed yourself to spending every waking hour trolling my threads and being generally disagreeable with everything I say and inferring I am wrong no matter what I say about any given topic. Your problem has reached the level of being an obsession and you should seek out professional help for that. 

Faith is required to believe the present is as we perceive it to be in the past, and faith is required to believe in My God, Your God, The Almighty God, or any other God incarnation known to man. That's what the OP argues and you have failed miserably to disprove.


----------



## Boss (May 24, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Time is required for anything in physics to happen. If you can prove otherwise, present your goddamn evidence or shut the fuck up. I am not going to play "Twister Semantics with Eddy" here.


----------



## Boss (May 24, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Plenty, and you ignore it all.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


So in your own fucked up typically two-faced CON$ervative way you are saying that it is not a statement of faith without saying it overtly just in case you have to claim it is a statement of faith.
Thank you.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I have no fucking idea what you are yammering about here. Are you Autistic? Seriously? 

Faith is belief in something not in evidence. Physics provides evidence for a physical universe, that's what it does, that's why it exists. So what the hell are you trying to argue? Do you even know? 

And again... My political views have not a damn thing to do with this argument. Physics works the same for everybody, regardless of their politics, even libertarians. But here yet again is another LIBERAL exposing himself for the fraud he is. You're not here desperately trying to refute my argument because you have a valid counter argument, it's because I am a Conservative and you dislike my politics. 

This is really disturbing. Have Liberals completely jumped the tracks of sanity and reasoned discourse? Conservatives aren't allowed to speak anymore without some smart ass Liberal putting them in their place, whether they make an adequate point or not? Is that what this comes down to? I am not going to be bullied around by a bunch of fucktarded Liberals who aren't making any sense. In the words of Dick Cheney, you can go fuck yourself.


----------



## G.T. (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faith is belief in something not in evidence. Physics provides evidence.


^^ exactly why we dont need faith in a present. Waa waa waaa


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faith is belief in something not in evidence. Physics provides evidence.
> ...



Are you with the Liberal Clown Posse too? 

Again... We are not able to observe the present. If we can't observe the present we can't evaluate the present with physics. The very most we can do is use physics as a basis to support what we have faith in. We can apply this to God just as well, the cosmological constant, for instance. But all "evidence" is subjective and dependent upon what we are willing to accept as evidence. You know... a bloody glove in the garden and the victim's DNA in a Bronco... doesn't equal a murder conviction because some people don't consider the evidence as valid.


----------



## G.T. (May 25, 2015)

Wow.

Its no wonder you had no clue what ed was saying to you.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Like what, "plenty"?

I can't ignore what you can't present. So, the question remains fully unanswered: What evidence is there for any of the gawds and in particular, your invented gawds?


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Again: yeah we can observe the present.

I wasn't aware we use physics to support religious faith. How does anyone do that?


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yeah, play the Perpetual VICTIM, crybaby! Get fucked!

If "time has to pass for things to happen" then there is no faith involved in the present.
Thank you.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Again, NO we can't observe the present. We can only observe a perception of the present in the past, after the present has happened. You cannot support your argument with physics, nor have you supported your argument with physics. You're just plain out being stubborn and insisting you don't need physics to have your opinion, and I agree, you don't... all you need is FAITH.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> We are not able to observe the present. If we can't observe the present we can't evaluate the present with physics.


BULLSHIT!
You can only argue that you cannot observe the present in the present, not that the present cannot be observed at all.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Again, *NO we can't observe the present.* *We can* only *observe* a perception of* the present *in the past, *after the present has happened*.


You stupidly contradict your stupid self! If we can observe the present after it has happened, then we CAN observe the present, just not in real time, but it can be observed and therefore no Godly faith is required.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The present is non-observable. IT cannot BE observable unless you defy physics, which you can't because you're a mortal human being in a physical universe. 

I'm not "Playing Victim" anything, just stating a fact... the people who don't seem to comprehend basic high school level physics seem to be fucktarded Liberals who don't like me because I am Conservative. Now... it could be that you are all retards who don't have the brains to come in out of the rain... OR ...could be that you simply don't like Conservatives and you're prejudiced against anything they have to say, even when they are right. I don't know which is the truth and it really doesn't matter to me. Until you can refute my argument with some science or physics, this gum-flapping nonsense is only exposing you for the fraudulent and ignorant moron you are. Carry fucking on, dude!


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We are not able to observe the present. If we can't observe the present we can't evaluate the present with physics.
> ...



The present cannot be observed at all.  
If the present isn't observed in the present it's not observed. DUH!


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> *We can* only *observe* a perception of *the present in the past*, after the present has happened.





Boss said:


> *The present is non-observable.* IT cannot BE observable unless you defy physics, which you can't because you're a mortal human being in a physical universe.


I love how those who nothing about physics claim it supports their contradictions!


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again, *NO we can't observe the present.* *We can* only *observe* a perception of* the present *in the past, *after the present has happened*.
> ...



All you are trying to moronically state is.. Something IS, even though it ISN'T! That is completely defiant of LOGIC! If we cannot observe the present in the present, then we're not observing the present! There isn't another way to cut that. What you have is a perception of the present which is coming to you in the past, the present has already gone, you didn't observe it, you couldn't observe it, physics had to happen first. You TRUST in FAITH that what you perceived as "the present" actually represents the present.... because it's impossible to observe it when it happened because of physics.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I'll let you answer your stupid self


Boss said:


> *We can* only *observe* a perception of *the present* in the past, *after the present has happened*.


DUH!


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Any delay in OBSERVING the present does not change the present, that is physics!


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *We can* only *observe* a perception of *the present in the past*, after the present has happened.
> ...



You are the one contradicting yourself here. You keep saying we can observe the present even though we can't and you know we can't. You can't use physics to support your claim, you just flat out insist that we can do something we cannot do, in complete defiance of physics. 

And I know a LOT about physics, buddy. I've never said that I didn't. I took it in high school and college and always made straight As. I'm wondering if some of you morons could pass a 9th grade basic science test the way you're arguing this. Not a damn thing have any of you presented to support your notion that we can observe the present. You keep saying it like it's some sort of immutable fact that can't be denied, but you can't explain it. Physics has to happen for you to have ANY perception, which means that anything you perceive has already happened and is already in the past before you can even perceive it. You simply CAN NOT OBSERVE THE PRESENT!   ...Unless you are GOD!


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Oh okay... So I have the "perception" that you are a retarded moron who lives in his mother's basement spending his days digging in his butt-hole and sniffing his finger. That's my perception of you so it MUST BE TRUE!


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Any delay in OBSERVING the present does not change the present, that is physics!



Nooooo.... Any delay in observing the present means you are no longer observing the present.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Any delay in OBSERVING the present does not change the present, that is physics!



How can you draw such a conclusion? You cannot observe the present to verify this.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Again, yes we can observe the present. You're hoping to make some goofy philosophical argument wherein you can connect your religious fundamentalism surrounding your gawds with time and perception. That's fine as a philosophical argument because ultimately those arguments are not required to meet the discipline of facts and evidence.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


As true as your bullshit that God = time!


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Any delay in OBSERVING the present does not change the present, that is physics!
> ...


According to this  you can.



Boss said:


> *We can* only *observe* a perception of *the present *in the past, *after the present has happened*


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well no, I didn't say that, Ed... you're taking selected words in a sentence and forming a new sentence out of context. Something you like doing while not sniffing your butt fingers but really has no meaning to anyone else.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Again, yes we can observe the present. You're hoping to make some goofy philosophical argument wherein you can connect your religious fundamentalism surrounding your gawds with time and perception. That's fine as a philosophical argument because ultimately those arguments are not required to meet the discipline of facts and evidence.



Hollie, we cannot observe the present. There is nothing philosophical about that, it's all a matter of physics. Time must happen for us to perceive anything. If time has happened, it's not the present anymore. Only the instant of the present is "the present" and everything following it is the past. Again you are insisting that we accept your bullheaded argument because you say so and not because you've supported it with any evidence. 

You're another one of the fascist Liberals who can't allow a Conservative to speak, even when they are correct. You're going to shut down any conversation by a Conservative because they don't agree with your politics. That's what is happening here and it's obvious to anyone who reads the thread. You make about the fourth or fifth liberal in the thread who has displayed this obsessive discordance.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Except that my argument is supported by physics and yours isn't. Of course, that doesn't matter in a Liberal Universe where only Liberals are allowed to have thoughts and express them and our perception of things confirm truth over science. That's the universe where Hillary is the smartest woman to ever live.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Any delay in OBSERVING the present does not change the present, that is physics!



That's NOT physics, that's FAITH. In order to prove that with physics, you need to be able to observe the actual present in the present, and you can't. Everything you observe is in the aftermath of the present. You have a perception of the present which cannot be confirmed due to physics. FAITH is what you have here.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...





> Nowhere was it ever stated the human spirit, or any other spirit was bound by physics. Nor are claims of God or anything else, bound by physics.





> *bo:* Again, NO we can't observe the present. We can only observe a perception of the present in the past, after the present has happened.


.
*we can't observe the present ....*

boy, you are thick - *your BODY can not observe the present*, by your account of physics ... that does not include the individuals Spirit or God.


are you saying when the physiology perishes and were the Spirit to survive it would be BLIND ?


* your politics is an underlying thread to your conversation, and is a bearing for the final outcome to the Triumph of Good vs Evil and matters but deny it anyways is probably in your best interest.

.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> *we can't observe the present ....*
> 
> boy, you are thick - *your BODY can not observe the present*, by your account of physics ... that does not include the individuals Spirit or God.
> 
> ...



No, *YOU* are the thick one. Spirits and Gods are not physical properties we can measure with physics. It's pointless to try and have a physical argument for spiritual things because they don't work. 

WE cannot observe the present... PERHAPS our SPIRITS can? ....I can't prove that with physics!!!! 

And this is not "by my account of physics" it's just by plain physics as humans understand physics... people don't have "accounts" of physics. People can't invent and create their own versions of physics. So how about stop spreading lies about what I've said and grow the fuck up?


----------



## MaryL (May 25, 2015)

Greeks had Kronos. The Romans had Saturn, the bringer of old age. I am agnostic, time is one of  the 4 dimensions, not a supernatural power.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Greeks had Kronos. The Romans had Saturn, the bringer of old age. I am agnostic, time is one of  the 4 dimensions, not a supernatural power.



Correction: Time is one of many dimensions. We have human physical perception of four but we know there are more. Still, you miss the point of the OP. The present instant of time exists outside our ability to observe it. We have a perception of it that we realize in the past, after the moment is gone. It is faith which makes us believe our perception is true.... there is no other way to confirm it. Everything you can possibly perceive requires passage of time, which means you aren't in the present when you perceive it. 

Therefore.... If you believe the moment of present exists but it's impossible to observe directly, how is that different than faith in God? Sure, you have good evidence, your perception... but we all see the universe through our own eyes so every perception of it is different.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Greeks had Kronos. The Romans had Saturn, the bringer of old age.



Goes back further than that. Humans have always had some kind of spiritual connection to something greater than self. The oldest human civilization remains ever unearthed shows signs of ritual ceremonial burial using red ocher... this can only be spiritual, there is no other possible rational explanation. Human spirituality is our species most defining attribute.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Any delay in OBSERVING the present does not change the present, that is physics!
> ...





Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Again, yes we can observe the present. You're hoping to make some goofy philosophical argument wherein you can connect your religious fundamentalism surrounding your gawds with time and perception. That's fine as a philosophical argument because ultimately those arguments are not required to meet the discipline of facts and evidence.
> ...



I can understand that you believe repeating slogans is an effective way to make an argument. However, repeating falsehoods doesn't magically turn falsehoods into truth. 

That most of us experience the here and now in real time will conflict with your attempt at some silly philosophical argument intended to promote your inventions of gawds. 

It's a shame that you have chosen to become the caricature of the angry fundamentalist. Creationist physics are not physics. You insist on pressing your religious agenda with the gawd=time meme and you're not understanding that your, or any version of creation science, is not a tool that can be used for an objective evaluation of contingent reality. 

Gawds=time? Well no. You have failed to make any case for that slogan,


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


LIAR!
Every one of your words are there in context, I just highlighted the pregnant ones that expose your contradiction!!!
But when you have to pretend that a magic word "physics" turns your bullshit into truth, all you have left is lying.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Greeks had Kronos. The Romans had Saturn, the bringer of old age.
> ...


More slogans that have re-cycled from thread to thread are a poor substitute for a coherent argument. Fear of the unknown and superstitions that were manifested in various forms of rituals are not the "spiritual" connection to gawds you're hoping to make. 

The types of fears and superstitions you promote have been a defining characteristic of institutions created by men to control and manipulate the masses. Fortunately, we see a waning influence of these institutions that have been used as tools for manipulation.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> I can understand that you believe repeating slogans is an effective way to make an argument. However, repeating falsehoods doesn't magically turn falsehoods into truth.



Nothing I have stated is a slogan or falsehood. Physics require time to happen. We cannot observe the moment of present time because physics must happen first. 



> That most of us experience the here and now in real time will conflict with your attempt at some silly philosophical argument intended to promote your inventions of gawds.



I've not said that you don't experience something, we all have experiences. I'm not making a philosophical argument here, I am making a physical argument and you're not refuting it. We cannot observe the instant of the present, it's not possible due to physics and the constraints of physical reality. I'm sorry if you are too dense to understand that, but it's a fact of physics not philosophy. 



> It's a shame that you have chosen to become the caricature of the angry fundamentalist. Creationist physics are not physics. You insist on pressing your religious agenda with the gawd=time meme and you're not understanding that your, or any version of creation science, is not a tool that can be used for an objective evaluation of contingent reality.
> 
> Gawds=time? Well no. You have failed to make any case for that slogan,



I'm not an angry caricature of anything. I don't have a religion. I've not mentioned religion. This is not a religious argument and I've repeatedly said that. So what the fuck are you talking like a crazy person for?


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



*NO.. WHEN YOU HIGHLIGHT SOME WORDS AND DISREGARD OTHER WORDS THAT IS TAKING ME OUT OF CONTEXT AND THAT'S WHAT YOU DID, ASSWIPE! *


----------



## MaryL (May 25, 2015)

Science changed since I was a kid. In 1968  I had a science book from the 1930's.  Scientific principals change now so fast, it is amazing. Dark matter, Higgs bosons. It is dazzling.  Einstein said, god doesn't  gamble.  Wrong!


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> More slogans that have re-cycled from thread to thread are a poor substitute for a coherent argument. Fear of the unknown and superstitions that were manifested in various forms of rituals are not the "spiritual" connection to gawds you're hoping to make.
> 
> The types of fears and superstitions you promote have been a defining characteristic of institutions created by men to control and manipulate the masses. Fortunately, we see a waning influence of these institutions that have been used as tools for manipulation.



You're not proving anything you are saying or even offering any evidence... it's just a rant. You claim this silly idea that humans invented God out of fearing the unknown but you cannot prove that. You have ZERO evidence of it! Furthermore, there is nothing in nature anywhere to suggest you are correct... it pretty much contradicts your idea. 

Now Religions were created by men, and many of them may have been created to control others... but that's not the same as human spirituality which predates religions by thousands of years.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Any delay in OBSERVING the present does not change the present, that is physics!
> ...


That is faith, not physics.
According to you, physics has proven and it is not faith that "time has to pass for things to happen." There is nothing in Bossy's Law of Time that requires any present observation for that law to be true. 

Now real physicists design instruments that can record events happening in the present for evaluation in the future, because in real physics "observation is never a proof." Physists depend on measurement rather than observation and physicists have many instruments that can measure the passage of time from the present to the past.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Correction: Time is one of many dimensions. We have human physical perception of four but *we know there are more*.


No, we theorize there are up to 11, but we do not know for sure. For you to claim "WE KNOW" is your faith speaking.

A perfect example of how in Bossy's "physics" faith and knowledge are flip-flopped!


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Science changed since I was a kid. In 1968  I had a science book from the 1930's.  Scientific principals change now so fast, it is amazing. Dark matter, Higgs bosons. It is dazzling.  Einstein said, god doesn't  gamble.  Wrong!



I didn't argue that Science doesn't change... where in the hell do you people get this stuff when I'm not posting anything close to what you're claiming? It's mind blowing! I am often the one reminding Atheists that Science has drawn NO conclusions on anything... it's still possible for Science to one day unlock the mysteries of human spiritual connection and spiritual nature. In some ways, it may already be doing this... quantum entanglement, for example.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Correction: Time is one of many dimensions. We have human physical perception of four but *we know there are more*.
> ...



Well according to you, everything that isn't already known and proven through our perception is only suitable for the trash bin anyway. Science means nothing to you except as a means to support your Godless Liberal agenda.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Humans have always had some kind of spiritual connection to something greater than self.


And,of course, you were there in the present to observe that, otherwise that can only be FAITH according to Bossy's Law of Time, Observation, and Faith.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Humans have always had some kind of spiritual connection to something greater than self.
> ...



I've never claimed that I don't have faith.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


LIAR!
Please link to in context quotes from me, you lying scum POS.


----------



## MaryL (May 25, 2015)

I pray, my mother might live a few more years. She dies hours later. Faith. Yeah.  Is God TIME?  Is god the X-axis? I don't know and I don't pray anymore. Shit happens. Randomness, the nemesis of Einstein.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No. In fact you have made it clear that the threads you open are for the purpose of proselytizing you own religion of magical spirit realms.


----------



## MaryL (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Science changed since I was a kid. In 1968  I had a science book from the 1930's.  Scientific principals change now so fast, it is amazing. Dark matter, Higgs bosons. It is dazzling.  Einstein said, god doesn't  gamble.  Wrong!
> ...


You misread my post, slow down hoss. Throttle down.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> No. In fact you have made it clear that the threads you open are for the purpose of proselytizing you own religion of magical spirit realms.



And you've made it clear that you are a god-hating liberal hack who is going to filibuster any thread by any conservative on any topic at any time. I've never seen you make a coherent argument on any topic. I don't think you are all that bright, to be honest.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

MaryL said:


> I pray, my mother might live a few more years. She dies hours later. Faith. Yeah.  Is God TIME?  Is god the X-axis? I don't know and I don't pray anymore. Shit happens. Randomness, the nemesis of Einstein.



Shit does happen, but it takes time to happen. That's the point of the OP. Does a "present time" exist or not? We have a perception of something after the fact. We cannot observe the moment of present time because physics has to (like shit) happen. 

God, regardless of what God you believe in, is not there to give you stuff. You prayed your mother would live a few more years and she didn't, but that wasn't what God had planned. I personally don't believe in a God with humanistic attributes... i.e.; a God that cares, loves, hates, wants, desires, spites, whatever. Those are human attributes... things humans do. God is omnipotent and omniscient. If God wanted anything, that's how it would be and we wouldn't have any control over it.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > No. In fact you have made it clear that the threads you open are for the purpose of proselytizing you own religion of magical spirit realms.
> ...



You're getting angry and emotive. You tend to do that when its pointed out that your posts are one long infomercial as proselytizing for your homemade religion of magical Spirit realms. 

I have no reason to hate your gawds or anyone else's gawds. What you find infuriating is that your proselytizing, shrouded under a burqa of pseudo-science and carelessly configured "philosophical" Stuttering and mumbling, is so easily dismantled.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> LIAR!
> Please link to in context quotes from me, you lying scum POS.



Well I will begin with the most recent post where you extracted certain words I said out of context to make an invalid point. I said that we cannot observe the present, we can only observe a perception of it in the past. You dropped "perception" and tried to lie and claim I said we could observe the present. So apparently you think "perception" after the fact is the same thing as directly observing something. You even tried to make that very argument about present time and our observing it in the past.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I'm not angry or emotive. I am not infuriated in the least. I am getting bored with you because you're not making any point except to be a totally crazy bitch ranting against God. I've presented sheer physics and nothing more... there has been no proselytizing or philosophical pseudo-science on my part. You only attempted once to challenge my physics argument and I made you look like an idiot who doesn't know a blessed thing about Science. Since that, you've been ranting like a lunatic.


----------



## MaryL (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > No. In fact you have made it clear that the threads you open are for the purpose of proselytizing you own religion of magical spirit realms.
> ...





Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > LIAR!
> ...


Why believe in any god at all? When we are just dust and fleeting? Who knows what god is?


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


On the contrary, you're infuriated. Your posts are frantic and emotive. 

There has been only proselytizing or philosophical pseudo-science on your part. You have no "sheer physics", whatever that is, only your personal biases and some silly attempts at philosophical stuttering and mumbling because you know that there is no "sheer physics" to support your nonsense.


----------



## edthecynic (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > LIAR!
> ...


You have no quotes so worthless lying scum that you are, you just keep on lying even after this very lie was corrected!
I extracted NO words, I dropped no words, every word was quoted, I merely highlighted the pregnant words within your entire in context quote that contradicted your lying bullshit.
It was OBVIOUSLY so devastating, in the present, that you know you can only lie, and lie you do!


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



That's a really good question, Mary.  I can't speak for anyone but myself. I couldn't just have blind faith in God. I realize a tremendous benefit from having a strong spiritual connection to what I call God. If there was no benefit, I would lose faith... it's as simple as that.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



There were no "pregnant" words... whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. You highlighted words so you could take what I said out of context. You didn't contradict anything, you haven't shown anything I've said to be a lie, you have only demonstrated the lengths you will go to in order to disagree with someone who doesn't share your political philosophy.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You just want the last word, which is part of your tactics. Rant and rave until the other person gives up and then you can declare victory by default. Sorry to disappoint you dear, I am not budging. 

When I state that present time cannot be observed, that is a physics argument, not proselytizing. Sorry you are too stupid to understand the difference.


----------



## MaryL (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


  Were is god now? Vacation? I held my dying  father in my arms, CPR, I prayed. Like the stones said, cant always get what you want...


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I'm just not convinced that your "sheer physics" is anything but some invention of yours. Sorry to burst your bubble, sweetie, but your "sheer physics" amounts to nothing more than your usual "..... because I say so", meme. I'm sorry your proselytizing is ineffective and ineffectual. If you're hoping to, at some point, make a coherent argument using something more than your invention of "sheer physics", do so. Otherwise, I'm perfectly confident that real physics, as opposed to your bastardized version, can be used to explore our present perceptions.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Were is god now? Vacation? I held my dying  father in my arms, CPR, I prayed. Like the stones said, cant always get what you want...



Again Mary, you are not contemplating God in the proper context. You want to view God as some kind of magic genie who grants your wishes and makes things happen that you wish to happen. All I can say is, it's a good thing you don't believe in that God because that God doesn't exist. 

I'm not here to tell you what you should believe in or what religion to follow, that's not my deal. I don't even know if you would realize the same benefits from spirituality as I have, I just know what has worked for me.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> I'm just not convinced that your "sheer physics" is anything but some invention of yours. Sorry to burst your bubble, sweetie, but your "sheer physics" amounts to nothing more than your usual...



Well let's stop here before you tear into another rant.  MY argument was that we cannot observe the actual moment of the present time. However you choose to label "present time" is up to you, we still cannot observe it because physics has to happen first, and that takes time. Now, I don't know how to convince someone that light travels at the speed of light or that electrical impulses have to travel to our brains... if you are too illiterate to understand that, I don't know how to explain it or convince you of it if you don't believe it. All I can do is tell you it's sheer physics.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just not convinced that your "sheer physics" is anything but some invention of yours. Sorry to burst your bubble, sweetie, but your "sheer physics" amounts to nothing more than your usual...
> ...


Yes. Let's stop with your pseudo-science. Your version of physics is suffering from a need you have to press your religious agenda. I shouldn't have to convince anyone that an instantaneous perception of the present is what we experience but then again, your version of physics requires an appeal to gawds=time. How you come to that belief is never addressed. I'm afraid this thread is yet another thread of yours intended to gain converts to your new fangled religion but using some twisted pseudo-science you call "sheer physics" is obviously not working.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Yes. Let's stop with your pseudo-science. Your version of physics is suffering from a need you have to press your religious agenda. I shouldn't have to convince anyone that an instantaneous perception of the present is what we experience but then again, your version of physics requires an appeal to gawds=time. How you come to that belief is never addressed. I'm afraid this thread is yet another thread of yours intended to gain converts to your new fangled religion but using some twisted pseudo-science you call "sheer physics" is obviously not working.



Hollie you can sit here and post one lying response after another about what I've presented, it's not flying because people can read the thread and see that you're lying. The OP specifically addresses that this is NOT a theological debate. I've made that point patiently to you and others several times. You can keep on claiming it, but you're just flat out lying through your teeth. 

I explained the title of the thread in the OP and back on page 1. Your lying and insisting I haven't, isn't going to work because people can read the thread and see who is being honest and who is lying. I'm not trying to convert anyone or promote any religion. My argument has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs. It's 100% textbook physics that any high school graduate should comprehend.

Nothing we have perception of is instantaneous. You can keep saying it... but it's just not true. Every form of perception we have is bound by the laws of physics and physical nature. Light has to travel, electrical impulses have to travel and it takes time to happen. If it takes time, it's not instant. I've repeatedly challenged you to present some scientific or physics evidence to support your argument and you've failed to do that. Instead, you seem to just want to keep repeating your lies and misleading people about what I've said. I guess you think this is eventually going to pay off, but it isn't because it's not true.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Let's stop with your pseudo-science. Your version of physics is suffering from a need you have to press your religious agenda. I shouldn't have to convince anyone that an instantaneous perception of the present is what we experience but then again, your version of physics requires an appeal to gawds=time. How you come to that belief is never addressed. I'm afraid this thread is yet another thread of yours intended to gain converts to your new fangled religion but using some twisted pseudo-science you call "sheer physics" is obviously not working.
> ...


Pontificating isn't going to hide your religious agenda, whether you throw a burqa on it or not. Gawd=time is not a science issue, it's you pressing your religious agenda. 

Your argument has nothing to do with physics, at least not any physics known outside of your religious agenda. We certainly do have a perception of the present and none of your pseudo-scientific appeals to gawds=time has done anything to refute that. 

Your again, typically, getting incensed that your religious agenda is called for exactly that: you pressing for converts to some gawds you can't define in any meaningful way. You're free to repeat your lies and hope to mislead people with your pseudo-science and appeals to some "sheer physics" you  have invented. 

Are you surprised you have no converts yet?


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



LMAO.. More lies?   Hollie, this ain't the Democrat National Convention. 

There is no religious agenda here. We do have a perception of the present, never denied this. Our perception is happening in the past, a part of history. Time in the present is ahead of our perception. If physics is true, it's not possible for us to ever observe the present.


----------



## Hollie (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Ah. Gawds=time has no suggestion of a religious agenda. This ain't your bible class, dear.

We of course do have a perception of the present. That perception Is an instantaneous moment in time. I'm afraid that none of your pseudo-science based attempts to press some religious agenda are going to salvage that bankrupt argument you have failed to make, for dozens of pages now.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 25, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > *we can't observe the present ....*
> ...




*And this is not "by my account of physics" it's just by plain physics as humans understand physics... people don't have "accounts" of physics.*

*WE cannot observe the present... PERHAPS our SPIRITS can? ....I can't prove that with physics!!!! 
.*

that is exactly what you are doing, using an account of physics - by using the plural *we* when generalizing what is observable in the present tense and doing so implying all possibilities when in fact you are only speaking about the physiology of an individual and not the cognizance that you state yourself is unknown (to you).

cognizance = time =/= physiology

cognizance does not have a pulse yet you assuredly speak loudly of your own existence ... your account of Physics is short sided.

.


----------



## Boss (May 25, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Ah. Gawds=time has no suggestion of a religious agenda. This ain't your bible class, dear.
> 
> We of course do have a perception of the present. That perception Is an instantaneous moment in time. I'm afraid that none of your pseudo-science based attempts to press some religious agenda are going to salvage that bankrupt argument you have failed to make, for dozens of pages now.



*Ah. Gawds=time has no suggestion of a religious agenda.*

Perhaps, if that were my argument. But you don't even have the thread title correct, that's how dumb you are.

*We of course do have a perception of the present.*

Hollie, where are you seeing me post that we don't have a perception of the present? 

*That perception Is an instantaneous moment in time.*

No it's not. Can't possibly be if you believe in physics. Nothing can "happen" instantly, it all takes time.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ah. Gawds=time has no suggestion of a religious agenda. This ain't your bible class, dear.
> ...


It's convenient that you want to disconnect your religious fundamentalism from the thread context but it's a bit late for that. Perhaps if you didn't make continual references to your version of gawds, you might be taken seriously when you whine about being questioned regarding your obvious motives.

And yes, we certainly do have an instantaneous perception of the present. Lacking a science background, (while pressing your religious agenda), you have difficulty understanding that. You might try reading some material on physics for a better understanding of the subject matter. 

Other than that, nothing you have offered so far does anything to support your religious conviction concerning the thread proposal gawds=time.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 26, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Why believe in any god at all? When we are just dust and fleeting? Who knows what god is?


/shrug......why believe we are just dust and fleeting?........


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Why believe in any god at all? When we are just dust and fleeting? Who knows what god is?
> ...


Hence the comforting burqa of religious belief. It assuages your fear of dying.

Them-there virgins, scantily clad women feeding you grapes while you lounge in a hammock, sitting on puffy clouds while fat, naked babies play harps, etc.

Sounds like, you know, heaven.

Do you really believe that the eternal party in the sky will be any less fun without you?


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 26, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...


to be honest, I would have no problem feeding scantily clad women grapes as THEY lounged in a hammock......


----------



## Boss (May 26, 2015)

Hollie said:


> It's convenient that you want to disconnect your religious fundamentalism from the thread context but it's a bit late for that.



I did it in the first paragraph of the OP and two more times on Page 1. There are six other times in the thread where I have stated to you and others that this is not a theological debate. I've had to call down a Muslim and a Christian for trying to argue their theological beliefs. So what it's a bit late for is you to show any degree of honesty or integrity. 



> Perhaps if you didn't make continual references to your version of gawds, you might be taken seriously when you whine about being questioned regarding your obvious motives.



You've gotten it all wrong, dear. I am not whining about anything, I am exposing you for the lying and dishonest bat shit crazy bitch you are. 



> And yes, we certainly do have an instantaneous perception of the present. Lacking a science background, (while pressing your religious agenda), you have difficulty understanding that. You might try reading some material on physics for a better understanding of the subject matter.
> 
> Other than that, nothing you have offered so far does anything to support your religious conviction concerning the thread proposal gawds=time.



Oh, I have a science degree, dear. I doubt you ever passed a high school science test... must have been blowing your teacher. NO... Perception does not happen instantaneously. Nothing physical happens instantly (without time.) It does not matter how many times you reject that fact, it's still a fact and you've not disproved it.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It's convenient that you want to disconnect your religious fundamentalism from the thread context but it's a bit late for that.
> ...


Oh my, but you angry fundamentalists do get nasty when your sacred cows are called into question. I just find it Iaughable that you try to represent a thread connecting your gawds to time as something other than a theological claim.

And quite clearly, your understanding of science is paltry. Do consider trying to understand the science you are struggling with. We clearly have a perception of the present. You have rattled on with nothing but your pointless "..... because I say so" nonsense while refusing to offer a coherent explanation for the claims.

As for you blowing your teacher, whatever works for ya' sweetie.


----------



## Boss (May 26, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Oh my, but you angry fundamentalists do get nasty when your sacred cows are called into question. I just find it Iaughable that you try to represent a thread connecting your gawds to time as something other than a theological claim.
> 
> And quite clearly, your understanding of science is paltry. Do consider trying to understand the science you are struggling with. We clearly have a perception of the present. You have rattled on with nothing but your pointless "..... because I say so" nonsense while refusing to offer a coherent explanation for the claims.
> 
> As for you blowing your teacher, whatever works for ya' sweetie.



I can see why you're so stupid and empty-headed. You refuse to open that empty vessel for further knowledge. The only one here who is rattling on with "because I say so" nonsense is YOU. The physics aspect here is very simple and most any high school level physics student understands it. When things "happen" it requires time. Things cannot "happen" without time. You've had every opportunity to disprove this with science and you haven't. 

Instead, you've presented this fantastic theory of magical instantaneous perception which defies physics and science.... Then you follow that with really stupid shit like this: 

*We clearly have a perception of the present.*

YES! Clearly, we do have a perception of the present and clearly, I've never denied this. For the third time in the past several pages, I've had to correct your lie. I've never said that we don't have a perception of the present. That's just goofy and silly... why would anyone say or think such a thing? Why do you keep making this false claim, trying to pin this on me like it was something I said? (Never mind, I know why.) 

Our perception doesn't happen instantly, it requires time passing. Anything humans can perceive is already in the past before their brain can process it. Our perception is constantly in the past, after the present. The moment of present time is _*non-observable *_because physics has to happen, and "happening" takes time._* 
*_


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Oh my, but you angry fundamentalists do get nasty when your sacred cows are called into question. I just find it Iaughable that you try to represent a thread connecting your gawds to time as something other than a theological claim.
> ...


Our perception of the present certainly does happen instantaneously. Your "...... because I say so" denial is a poor substitute for your lack of understanding of that basic event. 

I'm afraid your objection to the above is entirely a matter of your lack of a science vocabulary.


----------



## Boss (May 26, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Our perception of the present certainly does happen instantaneously. Your "...... because I say so" denial is a poor substitute for your lack of understanding of that basic event.
> 
> I'm afraid your objection to the above is entirely a matter of your lack of a science vocabulary.



It *cannot* happen instantaneously, dingbat! You're doing nothing but showing everyone what a complete and utter dumbass you are. You should really consider shutting your yapper when people start talking science because you are one more clueless air head. 

Not only are our perceptions *not instant*, they happen at different times depending on perspective. You know how you see a flash of lightning and it is followed by thunder? Well, the thunder is actually the sound made by the lightning ripping through the atmosphere. The perception of someone on the ground in close proximity of the strike is completely different than your perception 10 miles away. Light travels faster than sound, so you have perception of the light first, then the sound follows. If we had "instant" perception, we'd realize all this immediately at the same time. But physics has to happen, light and sound has to travel, time has to pass. Even the splitting of an atom takes time. 

Even with the physics taking time to happen, you still have a physical body and brain which have to process incoming information. The optic nerve is stimulated, it sends chemical and electric signals to the brain... these signals must travel, they don't get to the brain instantly. Then the brain has to process the signal, this also takes time. Some people have slower brains than others... (you are a classic example of that). So not a damn thing is happening instantly, even though it may appear that way to an air head like you.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Our perception of the present certainly does happen instantaneously. Your "...... because I say so" denial is a poor substitute for your lack of understanding of that basic event.
> ...


Such the stereotype of the angry, self-hating fundie.

Of course we do have an instantaneous perception of the present. Your skewed religious version what you call "sheer physics" is really pretty silly. 

If would have served your attempt at argument to provide some credible evidence for your "sheer physics" but as we see with your rattling, you have your own invention of physics.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Our perception of the present certainly does happen instantaneously. Your "...... because I say so" denial is a poor substitute for your lack of understanding of that basic event.
> ...



Is that your explanation for gawds=time®


----------



## Boss (May 26, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



All you are doing is repeating your "because I say so" argument. You've not presented anything of science to support your insane claim of instantaneous perception. I've not "invented" anything here, just using plain ordinary physics that any high school student understands. Light and sound travel... sorry toots--That's a physical fact of life. Nothing happens instantly.... everything that happens takes time to happen. If I drop a ball, it does not instantly appear on the ground, it has to travel there and it takes time. This is physics in action. I didn't invent it, I am not re-inventing it, and I am not proposing anything that contradicts it. You're just refusing to accept it which makes you a total moron. 

The only thing rattling here are the rocks inside your empty head. 

Okay... so here is what is going to happen now, Hollie. Unless you present some tangible science or physics to support your outrageous and fantastic claims of instant perception, I am going to completely ignore anything you have to say from here on out. It has become painfully obvious you just want to demagogue the thread and hoot down another Conservative while you rant against religion. You're not interested in a debate, you're too busy being a troll. So you can be a troll and tee off on religion or me, I don't really care, you're not adding anything to the conversation at this point, so rattle on dimwit!


----------



## Boss (May 26, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Of course we do have an instantaneous perception of the present.



Of course we don't and I hereby challenge you to present *ANY* evidence to support your argument. 

I've already presented MY evidence... Light travels, sound travels, electric impulses travel, all require time to travel. The brain has to process information and it requires time to do so. Therefore, it is impossible for us to have "instantaneous perception" of anything.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's pretty typical behavior for you to stomp your feet and threaten to take your ball and bat and leave when you're too befuddled to compose a coherent argument. 

Aside from your usual pontificating, I see nothing in your foot stomping and hysterics to suggest you have actually tried to defend your position regarding gawds=time™.

How does our instantaneous perception if the present = one or more of the gawds?


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Of course we do have an instantaneous perception of the present.
> ...



All the actions you describe occur within an instantaneous moment of time. So yes, we have an instantaneous perception of the present.

How does anything you have pontificated on suggest gawds=time©?


----------



## Boss (May 26, 2015)

So... no evidence?


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> So... no evidence?


No. Nothing at all from you delineating how gawds=time™

Did you forget the title of your thread?


----------



## Boss (May 26, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Did you forget the title of your thread?



Apparently you did. You've not gotten it correct as of yet.


----------



## Hollie (May 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Did you forget the title of your thread?
> ...


So how does our instantaneous perception of time=gawds®?

You wrote: "We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present."


----------



## BreezeWood (May 26, 2015)

.


> You wrote: "We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present."




awfully familiar precipice ... " there is no way (of knowing) but through me (bossy) ".  - the new year 0


Spirit = God = ∞

.


----------



## Boss (May 26, 2015)

There is no way to realize anything happening in a physical universe without time passing. 

Present time is non-observable by mortal human beings in a physical universe. 

We have a perception of something that has already happened.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 26, 2015)

Boss said:


> We have a perception of something that has already happened.


.
you are saying you have no control of your life ... a defeatist view, rather than having a perception of what 'is' happening.

.


----------



## Boss (May 26, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We have a perception of something that has already happened.
> ...



???? How did you interpret that from what I said???  

Maybe the problem here is, you don't really understand the English language? 

This has nothing to do with ME, or any theological belief I may or may not have. I am simply pointing out the principles of physics and how they apply to reality, or what we perceive as reality in a physical universe. Our perceptions (rooted in our 5 senses) are totally dependent upon the laws of physics. We can't see light until it has traveled to us, stimulated our optic nerve, signals transmitted and processed by the brain... all this takes time to happen, it doesn't happen instantly. Our PERCEPTION is not in the present, it can't be... not if physics has to happen, which it does. 

Now dammit.... Either you can contradict my argument with some kind of valid science or physics, or you can't.  No need to sit here and try to figure out some way of twisting and morphing my argument into some abomination you can refute or attack because I'm not going to allow it to stand. If you can't argue against the point I've made, just say... _"Good OP, Boss!  You make a valid point that I hadn't considered!" _ ...Really, it won't kill you!


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


None of your reiterating the same slogans and cliches' does anything to refute our perception of the present, as you acknowledged and subsequently backtracked on. 

None of the above does anything to support your supposition that gawds=time.

I'll say..... "_What a waste of bandwidth bossy. You made various statements, none of which you have been able to support_"


----------



## BreezeWood (May 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


.
*We can't see light until it has traveled to us, stimulated our optic nerve, signals transmitted and processed by the brain...*

why do you persist in including the Spirit with physiology ?


*I am simply pointing out the principles of physics and how they apply to reality ...*

again, they only relate in this case to an individuals physiology - your argument is purely Atheistic, robotic and defeatist.


only the "conservative" would restrict Being's free will by the limitations of physics ...

.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2015)

Hollie: When you stop lying to people about things I've said and can get the title of the thread correct, as well as the difference between perception and observation, maybe we can have a conversation. But for now, I am going to ignore you because you're not bringing anything to the table except more dishonesty. You've made it clear that you really don't intend to debate, you want to filibuster and demagogue because you don't like me personally. 

Breeze: This thread isn't about spirits. Physics and physical science doesn't currently have a field of study covering spirits and spiritual nature, so it's pointless to try and have a scientific debate about it. I have opinions about spirits and spiritual nature but this thread argument isn't the place for them.  Like I've said consistently, this is NOT a theological argument. Now I am way too smart to allow someone like you to twist things around and make it into a theological argument... so what the hell do you think you're doing? 

Again.... What is on display here are two Liberals who don't like me because I am a Conservative. So they have decided to act like 6-year-olds and throw a fit every time I post something. The Mods should ban you both for being harassing trolls but they won't. We're stuck with having to put up with you two mucking up the thread with nonsense and lies because you're not mature enough to converse with someone who doesn't share your political views. It's really sad, but that's what it comes down to.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie: When you stop lying to people about things I've said and can get the title of the thread correct, as well as the difference between perception and observation, maybe we can have a conversation. But for now, I am going to ignore you because you're not bringing anything to the table except more dishonesty. You've made it clear that you really don't intend to debate, you want to filibuster and demagogue because you don't like me personally.
> 
> Breeze: This thread isn't about spirits. Physics and physical science doesn't currently have a field of study covering spirits and spiritual nature, so it's pointless to try and have a scientific debate about it. I have opinions about spirits and spiritual nature but this thread argument isn't the place for them.  Like I've said consistently, this is NOT a theological argument. Now I am way too smart to allow someone like you to twist things around and make it into a theological argument... so what the hell do you think you're doing?
> 
> Again.... What is on display here are two Liberals who don't like me because I am a Conservative. So they have decided to act like 6-year-olds and throw a fit every time I post something. The Mods should ban you both for being harassing trolls but they won't. We're stuck with having to put up with you two mucking up the thread with nonsense and lies because you're not mature enough to converse with someone who doesn't share your political views. It's really sad, but that's what it comes down to.


Your melodrama was really pointless.

If you refuse to address the challenges to your specious opinions, that's fine, but the silly whining gets you no points for martyrdom.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Your melodrama was really pointless.
> 
> If you refuse to address the challenges to your specious opinions, that's fine, but the silly whining gets you no points for martyrdom.



Sorry, but you are the one with the unanswered challenge on the table. Remember?

You were challenged to present some valid scientific evidence to support _Hollie's Theory of Instantaneous Perception_™  ...but you never did.  

All you could manage to do was express your opinion which I disagreed with because it isn't compatible with science or physics.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2015)

_*You made various statements, none of which you have been able to support.*_

Such as???


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> _*You made various statements, none of which you have been able to support.*_
> 
> Such as???


Gawds=time.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > _*You made various statements, none of which you have been able to support.*_
> ...



Not my words, sorry.


----------



## edthecynic (May 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's YOUR title, liar!


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No... No, it's not.  ...Try again!


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I expected you would drop ten and punt. Your thread title was a baseless claim which you can't defend. 

That's pretty typical for your threads which amount to proselytizing for your new fangled, homemade religion.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well. first of all, you lying bitch, the title of my thread was NOT "gawds=time" or anything remotely close to that. Second, the title of the thread is not a statement. The basis for the title is the OP, which explains everything. Back on Page 1, I clarified the thread title was intentionally allegorical and defined what was meant by both "time" and "god" in proper context. You have chosen to ignore all that and interject some false thing that was not said by me. It's because you are a dishonest lying bitch. 

I don't need to drop ten and punt... I need for your lying bitch ass to present some coherent support for your theory that we don't need time to perceive things. That's what you said repeatedly and you've not supported it with anything but your lying ass "because I say so" opinion. It's because you're a lying ass bitch who doesn't know how to be anything else. 

I am not going to keep responding to your lies. If you want to sit here and freestyle lie for another 20 pages, that's fine with me. Gooftards like Eddy and Breeze can join you and you all can have a Liberal Lie-fest! It's apparently what you enjoy doing and far be it from me to keep you from it. So you three can carry on with your games and I'll wait for someone intelligent to reply who wants to discuss the thread OP.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


That was quite the filibuster. Why not just be honest and acknowledge the thread was another attempt by you to proselytize for your new fangled religion? Why not just be honest and admit your silly gawds=time is a farce you cannot defend?


----------



## The Irish Ram (May 27, 2015)

God is Light, not time.


----------



## edthecynic (May 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yes.... Yes it IS! 
"Is" in English is the equal sign in Physics.

Two plus two is four
2 + 2 = 4
Same exact thing!
Physics says you are a full of shit liar.


----------



## Hollie (May 27, 2015)

The Irish Ram said:


> God is Light, not time.


Gawds are whatever you want them to be. Just add a heapin' helpin' of fear, superstition, human attributes and cultural bias and voila', gawds for every occasion.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> "Is" in English is the equal sign in Physics.



...says Sir Issac Dingbat.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2015)

The Irish Ram said:


> God is Light, not time.



What is light without time?


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2015)

The Irish Ram said:


> God is Light, not time.



For clarification and because this thread has grown quite long with all the filibustering and lying by god-haters... I stated back on the first several pages that "God... Is Time" was an allegorical title intentionally chosen to convey the overall context of the OP argument. I further clarified that God is greater than time or light or anything else in our physical universe. If you want to understand the title you need to read the OP. I would also suggest reading the first several pages where the conversation was had about the meaning of the title and the implications of the OP.  From about the fourth page on is pretty much trash from trolls and can be dismissed. No one has been able to refute my OP argument but we have a healthy number of morons who think they have and continue to rally around each other in an attempt to hoot me down because I'm not a liberal god-hater like them. 

But physics isn't a popularity contest, nor is physics exclusive to godless liberal scumbuckets. Fact remains, we cannot observe the moment of present time. We only have a perception of what appears to have been the present time, coming to us after the fact. In order to believe the present exists as we perceive it, we must have faith... there is no other option because we cannot observe the present to confirm it.


----------



## edthecynic (May 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > "Is" in English is the equal sign in Physics.
> ...



Homeschool World - Articles - The Equal Sign - Symbol Name Meaning - Practical Homeschooling Magazine

Sometimes, a child will correctly identify one of the proper meanings of the equal sign, but if not, after letting children try for a while, I will give the following multi-step explanation:


*"Equals" means "is,"* so "3 + 5 = 8" means "3 + 5 is 8," while "7 + 2 = 7 + 2" means simply "7 + 2 is 7 + 2."



Sometimes, we can also say that "equals" means "is the same value as," such as when we say correctly that "1 dollar = 4 quarters." It is not quite correct to say that "1 dollar is 4 quarters," since it is not true that 1 piece of paper is 4 round pieces of metal. This is where we have to bring in an alternate meaning of the equal sign, and in this example, "1 dollar is the same value as 4 quarters" is a better definition of what "equals" means.



*In summary, the equal sign means either simply is* or simply is the same value as. That is all the equal sign means - nothing more, and literally, nothing less.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2015)

Ah... yet another distracting and derailing semantics argument from the master of semantics arguments and other assorted moronic nonsense!  Sorry... Not biting!   The word "IS" can mean a variety of things other than "EQUAL TO" and any moron who isn't home-schooled by retards would know this. The fact that you can MAKE them mean the same thing so that you can then misquote me and pretend I said something I didn't say and I've repeatedly corrected any misconception of, is indicative of someone who is trying desperately to take the thread off topic... in this case, because they have lost the debate. 

Vaseline?


----------



## edthecynic (May 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Ah... yet another distracting and derailing semantics argument from the master of semantics arguments and other assorted moronic nonsense!  Sorry... Not biting!   The word "IS" can mean a variety of things other than "EQUAL TO" and any moron who isn't home-schooled by retards would know this. The fact that you can MAKE them mean the same thing so that you can then misquote me and pretend I said something I didn't say and I've repeatedly corrected any misconception of, is indicative of someone who is trying desperately to take the thread off topic... in this case, because they have lost the debate.
> 
> Vaseline?


Now Bossy is channeling Clinton, "it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is," like a good little CON$ervoFascist hypocrite!
Thank you.


----------



## Boss (May 27, 2015)

Wow, that's clever Eddy... your hero Clinton even agrees that "is" can mean a lot of things! 

Yes, I would say you need some Vaseline. Brutal.


----------



## edthecynic (May 27, 2015)

Boss said:


> Wow, that's clever Eddy... your hero Clinton even agrees that "is" can mean a lot of things!
> 
> Yes, I would say you need some Vaseline. Brutal.


If you say so Billy Bossy.


----------



## Hollie (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > God is Light, not time.
> ...


What is a thread by bossy without meaningless banter?


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> What is light without time?


Light.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > What is light without time?
> ...



How can you tell?


----------



## Hollie (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Gawds=light.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

The thread title is not "gawds=time" as Liar Hollie continues to claim and Liar Eddy continues to argue. 

Some people obviously don't understand what an allegorical title is or why it is used. If the title bothers you, dismiss it until you read the OP and understand the point that is being made. If you can't do that, please don't waste my time. 

It is not physically possible for humans to observe the moment known as "present time" due to physics. We must have *faith* that our perception of "present time" is as we perceive it, because we are perceiving it in the past, always. Light must travel, electric impulses must travel, the brain must process the information into a perception and cause realization. These things do not happen instantly, despite what Professor Hollie theorizes without any basis. 

If we cannot observe it, test it or measure it, we cannot evaluate it scientifically. The moment of present time is elusive. Because physics has to happen for us to realize perception and this means our perception is trapped in the past forever. We have *faith* the present exists as it is being perceived. It can't be proven because it is beyond our ability to observe. This firmly places "present time" in the same category as God. Something that exists but is not observable, testable or measurable by any physical science or human observation. *Faith* is essential.


----------



## G.T. (May 28, 2015)

No. Bad. No. 

Physics proves the present. 

Theres no faith required, jesus christ.


----------



## Hollie (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> The thread title is not "gawds=time" as Liar Hollie continues to claim and Liar Eddy continues to argue.
> 
> Some people obviously don't understand what an allegorical title is or why it is used. If the title bothers you, dismiss it until you read the OP and understand the point that is being made. If you can't do that, please don't waste my time.
> 
> ...


".... because I say so".

This firmly places " present time" in the same category of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. _Something that exists but is not observable*™*_


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

G.T. said:


> No. Bad. No.
> 
> Physics proves the present.
> 
> Theres no faith required, jesus christ.



Physics cannot 'prove' what it can't observe.


----------



## G.T. (May 28, 2015)

It can, time is a proven dimension in physics and within the laws of physics dimensions dont sporadically disappear. Observing it is a matter of perspective - needing faith in physics is not.

These things are tested and proven.
God is not.

Your analogy sucks julie krones balls


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The thread title is not "gawds=time" as Liar Hollie continues to claim and Liar Eddy continues to argue.
> ...



It's impossible for humans to observe the present. Physics has to happen in order to deliver a perception and that always takes time. Despite our inability to observe the present, three possibilities logically exist... 1) the present exists, 2) the present does not exist, and 3) the present exists but not as we perceive it. You can't prove which is true because you can't observe it. Whatever you believe requires *faith*. Now you can be like GT and refuse to believe it does, but it does and that hasn't been refuted with science or physics yet.


----------



## G.T. (May 28, 2015)

Of course it has.

Physics knows where the earth will be in accordance with the sun and moon in 5 minutes.

They dont need to wait the 5 minutes, i.e. to "observe" this, in order for it to be true. It is mathematics, not faith. Not in the least.

The same is with time.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

G.T. said:


> It can, time is a proven dimension in physics and within the laws of physics dimensions dont sporadically disappear. Observing it is a matter of perspective - needing faith in physics is not.
> 
> These things are tested and proven.
> God is not.
> ...



Sorry, you're not presenting anything from physics or science to support your claim. We cannot observe the present due to laws of physics beyond our control. Any testing we can do is on something in the past which is no longer in the present. We can't apply physics to something we can't observe. 

*Observing it is a matter of perspective...*
*



 *


----------



## G.T. (May 28, 2015)

Ehhhh, wrong.

Physics has proven that in time - there is a past, a present and a future. 

No faith required, established dimension is established dunder head.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Of course it has.
> 
> Physics knows where the earth will be in accordance with the sun and moon in 5 minutes.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but physics simply doesn't "know" any such thing. Physics may "predict" something, but YOU are interpreting a prediction to be accurate and exercising faith in the prediction. The entire universe could simply disappear before another second passes because that's what happens to physical universes every 14.5 billion years and we didn't know that.


----------



## G.T. (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it has.
> ...


No, see - here is where youre a dunderhead.

When a prediction has occured for thousands of "5 minutes'" with the % accuracy it has, it no longer is about faith it is of certainty. 

You equating a faith in physics with a faith in god is a stretch of epic proportions. 

You know that.

We know that.

Which is why the knee jerk response is to call you a zealot asshole abd be done with it.

Instead its more fun watching you play fake smart.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Ehhhh, wrong.
> 
> Physics has proven that in time - there is a past, a present and a future.
> 
> No faith required, established dimension is established dunder head.



Physics proves that anything which "happens" in a physical universe requires passage of time. It cannot prove what it can't observe!  How many times does that need to be repeated before you understand it? 

What you are saying is really NO DIFFERENT than if I were saying: _"Physics proves God exists now and forever!"_  I mean.... I can *SAY* that... I can get up on my rooftop and scream it at the top of my lungs from now til the day I die... it doesn't make it a true statement!  And that's all you're doing here, repeating something that is just not factual and you've not supported with anything other than your wrongheaded opinion about physics.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

G.T. said:


> When a prediction has occured for thousands of "5 minutes'" with the % accuracy it has, it no longer is about faith it is of certainty.



NONSENSE!  This is not supported by the Scientific Method.


----------



## G.T. (May 28, 2015)

Yes, yes it is. We can actually calculate a % PROBABILITY that future things will happen, using physics.

The closer to 100, the less faith.

What do you suppose the % chance is that physics predicts the movement of the earth within the next 5 minutes?



Id say 99.99999999999999% without having a physicist do the actual math.

Now, that means it takes 0.000000000001% faith.


Faith in god? Dont try and compare that, dunderhead. Laughable.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

G.T. said:


> You equating a faith in physics with a faith in god is a stretch of epic proportions.



I didn't equate faith in physics with faith in God, but faith is faith.  Physics cannot measure or evaluate what is non-observable... remember, that's the problem with physics and God?  I am equating God with the moment of present time in terms of faith that is required to believe they exist. My faith is they both exist, but I can't prove either with physics because I can't observe them.


----------



## G.T. (May 28, 2015)

You cant equate the two.

One is probable, the other's probability isnt even calculable 

Thats not a comparable faith, its simple above derp level thinking.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Yes, yes it is. We can actually calculate a % PROBABILITY that future things will happen, using physics.
> 
> The closer to 100, the less faith.
> 
> ...



You're still missing the point. 0,00000000000001% faith is STILL faith! A prediction is still a prediction of probability, not a conclusion of proven fact. All that physics can possibly evaluate is what is observable to physics in a physical universe. It can make predictions but predictions rely on faith in the prediction. Furthermore, what your physics is evaluating is remnants of time which already passed. We cannot prove our perception of reality is actual because we are unable to observe the present to confirm that belief. It requires *faith*.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

G.T. said:


> You cant equate the two.
> 
> One is probable, the other's probability isnt even calculable
> 
> Thats not a comparable faith, its simple above derp level thinking.



Yes, you can equate the two because they both require faith.  You say that one requires less faith but I disagree. Faith is still faith, regardless of amounts which are subjective. It's just as "probable" that God exists as the present existing as we perceive it. There is no physics to prove it because it cannot be observed.


----------



## G.T. (May 28, 2015)

No, something that is 99.999999999% likely to occur is above what id call faith but uh....you do you.

Id call that 0.0000000001% faith, 99.99_ actuality. 

Whereas god requires 100% faith.

Not an apt comparison, a horrendous, childish one, even.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

G.T. said:


> No, something that is 99.999999999% likely to occur is above what id call faith but uh....you do you.
> 
> Id call that 0.0000000001% faith, 99.99_ actuality.
> 
> ...



No... something that is predicted to be 99.999999999% probable, is *NOT A PROVEN FACT.* 

Faith is 100% faith all the time. It's because the word "faith" has a specific meaning and it's not something we can physically measure or calculate. You can "call that" whatever the hell you feel like calling it, that doesn't matter to physics.


----------



## G.T. (May 28, 2015)

Then no, i wouldnt call some occurance 99.9999999% probable as needing faith.

But i would call believing in god needing faith.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Then no, i wouldnt call some occurance 99.9999999% probable as needing faith.
> 
> But i would call believing in god needing faith.



Well that's obvious, GT. The point of the OP is that humans living in a physical universe rely on faith. We cannot avoid it. As great as science and physics are, they are useless in evaluating things that can't be observed. You are trying to claim that probability is proven fact. This is a very dangerous way of thinking which has been the downfall of many-a-man. You know NOTHING about the future or if there will even be a future. Predict all you like, you cannot prove it with physics because you cannot observe it. 

Like I pointed out... Something could happen to physical universes after 14.5 billion years, where they suddenly and abruptly dissipate and become æther.  Physics cannot prove this doesn't happen or can't happen. Physics can't evaluate what it can't observe. 

Again... We all rely on faith that our perception of reality in the present is indicative of an actual moment of present time which is non-observable to us until we perceive it in the past. There is no way around this because of physics. Time has to happen for things to happen. We can't be "aware" of anything without time passing and us becoming aware.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> It's impossible for humans to observe the present. Physics has to happen in order to deliver a perception and that always takes time. Despite our inability to observe the present, three possibilities logically exist... 1) the present exists, 2) the present does not exist, and 3) the present exists but not as we perceive it. You can't prove which is true because you can't observe it.


And physics never depends on observation. Therefore there is a 4th option that physics depends on, "the present exists as we MEASURE it."


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Physics may "predict" something, but YOU are interpreting a prediction to be accurate and exercising faith in the prediction.


Wrong again. Physics takes MEASUREMENTS to calculate the accuracy of its predictions. No faith involved in the calculations.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> The entire universe could simply disappear before another second passes because that's what happens to physical universes every 14.5 billion years and we didn't know that.


BULLSHIT!
I predict the FUTURE, the universe WILL be here tomorrow!


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Like I pointed out... Something could happen to physical universes after 14.5 billion years, where they suddenly and abruptly dissipate and become æther. Physics cannot prove this doesn't happen or can't happen. Physics can't evaluate what it can't observe.


When Bossy pontificates BULLSHIT, physics becomes impotent. 
Physics evaluates your crap as pure nonsense.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> passage of time.


From what to what?


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > No, something that is 99.999999999% likely to occur is above what id call faith but uh....you do you.
> ...


Based on the measurements of the motion of the universe, I predict with 100% certainty that the universe will still exist tomorrow.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> *Observing it is a matter of perspective...
> 
> View attachment 41781 *


Which is why real Physics depends on measurements rather than observation.
Only Bossy's fake physics for morons depends entirely on observation.


----------



## Hollie (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Then no, i wouldnt call some occurance 99.9999999% probable as needing faith.
> ...


Contingent reality requires no faith. As much time as you spend pontificating brings no one closer to your gawds as a requirement for our perception of the present.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


no it isn't.....no "gawds" in the title at all......


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 28, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Then no, i wouldnt call some occurance 99.9999999% probable as needing faith.
> 
> But i would call believing in god needing faith.


obviously just in claiming its 99.999999% instead of 97% or 83% or 49.6%, you are still making a faith choice.......


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Picky, picky, picky. That is the phonetic televangelist spelling.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It's impossible for humans to observe the present. Physics has to happen in order to deliver a perception and that always takes time. Despite our inability to observe the present, three possibilities logically exist... 1) the present exists, 2) the present does not exist, and 3) the present exists but not as we perceive it. You can't prove which is true because you can't observe it.
> ...



We can't measure what we cannot observe. Physics cannot apply to what isn't observable or physics would apply to God. 

All we can possibly measure is a perception-after-the-fact. The moment of present was gone before you could even realize it, much less measure it. You're left with a perception which you can't confirm if it's correct because you can't observe the present. 

We can keep going over this again and again until it sinks into your granite-like cranium, but you can't win this argument because physics doesn't support you. What is required is *FAITH*.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Picky, picky, picky.



No, it's not being picky to point out faith is faith. You either have faith or you don't have faith. It's as simple as that. The degree of faith you think you have is dependent upon your evaluation of the evidence to support your faith and this varies from person to person. 

Predictions of something, no matter how accurate you believe they are, do not equal proof of fact. For example, I can predict the Patriots will win the Super Bowl... I may be correct or I may be wrong, it isn't a fact until it happens. Doesn't matter how much faith I have in the Patriots or how little faith I have.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> We can't measure what we cannot observe. Physics cannot apply to what isn't observable or physics would apply to God.


Physicists have been measuring time for centuries.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We can't measure what we cannot observe. Physics cannot apply to what isn't observable or physics would apply to God.
> ...



They haven't measured present time because it can't be observed.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The more time they measure the more presents they measure.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > passage of time.
> ...


bump


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Again, it is as silly as saying they can measure God. 

You can say it... just isn't true!  

We cannot observe the present. Therefore, we cannot measure the present. The only information we have is perception created after time passes and is no longer the present. Can we measure past time? Sure... that's all we can measure because it's all we can observe. 

Wanna be silly another dozen more posts? Fine with me! Let's be silly! We still can't measure what can't be observed.... that won't change because you're acting silly and it will still be the same tomorrow, if tomorrow comes.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > passage of time.
> ...



Past to more distant past. 

Again... Because of physics having to happen, we cannot observe the moment of present time.  I don't give a damn how long you want to obfuscate and dance around playing semantics games, that isn't going to change. All humans can have is a perception of is time which has already passed. The perception we assume is the present is already in the past forever. We require faith to believe our perception of the present is an accurate representation.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> Again, it is as silly as saying they can measure God.


Time is measured all the time and since according to you "God is time" then we measure God with every timepiece!


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> The more time they measure the more presents they measure.



This shows a complete lack of comprehension regarding the meaning of "present" in context of time. How can they measure something they can't observe?


----------



## BreezeWood (May 28, 2015)

.
... after your Juvenal outburst


was that a cover from what is meant by "we" in the observance of the present ?


such that the variance in oxygen consumption would have likewise the same affect on the present time as neuro receptors ? - 

or the affect on present time caused by the common cold ...



.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


That is as mindless as claiming from the distant future to the less distant future.
All you have done is redefine the present as the past and the past as the distant past.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The more time they measure the more presents they measure.
> ...


With a timepiece.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again, it is as silly as saying they can measure God.
> ...



Look goofball, I've already gone over context several times here.  "TIME" can mean all kinds of goddamn things! In the *proper context* of this debate, it specifically means the moment of present time. First of all, you can't measure a point in time. You can only measure between points of time. Because of physics and our inability to observe the present time, we can only measure between points in time which already happened.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> the moment of present time.


Thank you.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You can't observe the present. You're not capable of it because you are a physical being living in a physical universe. You only have a perception which is happening after time has passed and is no longer the present. It's not mindless, it's the truth, you just don't want to accept it because you don't want my argument to be right... but the argument is right.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> You can only measure between points of time. Because of physics and our inability to observe the present time, we can only measure between points in time which already happened.


Baloney!


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > the moment of present time.
> ...



You're welcome.  The moment of present time is non-observable due to physics having to happen. Your perception of present time is happening in the past whether you like it or not, there isn't anything we can do about that because of physics having to happen.


----------



## sealybobo (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Everything on this planet came from a star. Maybe not even the same star. Ultimately everything is made of star stuff. One day this planet and our sun will die and everything i n our solar system will be absorbed into and other solar system and galaxy and solar system. One day you might become.part of another world maybe the next big bang. But that's after you died and became ashes to ashes.and after the billions of years yoj ur xuzt might end up on a planet like Venus or jupitar where you'll not live. Oh well. Maybe the next go around. Seeing as how 99.9999% of the univedse is not good for life. Feel lucky you got 1 shot.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You can only measure between points of time. Because of physics and our inability to observe the present time, we can only measure between points in time which already happened.
> ...



Sorry, your drawing doesn't disprove physics. You cannot observe the moment of present time. You can only have a perception happening in the past, of which you can have faith that this perception is accurate.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Completely irrelevant to the OP topic.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Again, perception is useless in physics as it is a variable, the present always happens in the present no matter when, where or if it is perceived or not. If there was no present there could be no perception of the present.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Whether you observe it or not, the present moves inexorable on.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


That's because it IS physics!


----------



## BreezeWood (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> The moment of present time is non-observable due to physics having to happen.


.
again, by physics it is observable - the OP's non-observable delay is only a meaningless physiological issue.

.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Again, perception is useless in physics as it is a variable, the present always happens in the present no matter when, where or if it is perceived or not. If there was no present there could be no perception of the present.



The present can't "happen" because for things to "happen" takes time. What we perceive as "the present" is already in the past before we can perceive it. The present has moved on. It is beyond our ability to observe because physics must happen in a physical universe for us to realize perceptions. 

Now you can SAY "If there was no present there could be no perception of the present" but that is a faith-based assumption you cannot support with physics or science. You can't verify something you cannot observe. You may as well be saying "If there was no God, there could be no perception of the present!"  Both require faith.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The moment of present time is non-observable due to physics having to happen.
> ...



It's not meaningless. Yes it's a physiological issue, we are bound as physical beings to a physical universe operating under the laws of physics. We cannot observe the present moment of time because physics has to happen first. We rely on *FAITH* in our perception of what we assume to be "the present time" but our information is arriving in the past.


----------



## Boss (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> That's because it IS physics!



A lot of things are physics! It doesn't disprove my argument in any way.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 28, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


no.....that's the boards phoney debater's spelling......


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> The present can't "happen" because for things to "happen" takes time. What we perceive as "the present" is already in the past before we can perceive it. The present has moved on.


The present IS what's happening in the present no matter when or if it is perceived. The present happens independent of any perception or faith.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > That's because it IS physics!
> ...


It disproves your pontification in every way.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The present can't "happen" because for things to "happen" takes time. What we perceive as "the present" is already in the past before we can perceive it. The present has moved on.
> ...



Again, I have not made the argument that the present must be perceived. The only way we have of knowing a present exists is perception of it in the past. We can't observe the present due to physics. You can presume the present is happening in the present, that is what most of us do assume, but it is a matter of faith because we can't prove it through observation. Because of physics our perception lags behind the moment of present time and we must rely on faith that the present is as we perceive it to be. 

This literally puts all concepts of God and Spirit in the same category as the moment of present time. Something we cannot observe or confirm with science and must rely on faith to believe it exists. You've not refuted this and no one can because it's the truth. All you can do is try to muddy the waters with semantics tricks and obfuscation. Quick, create a smoke and mirrors distraction so that this point is not made! But... the point has already been made and it hasn't been refuted.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No, I am sorry, it doesn't disprove anything. You presented an incorrect graphic that isn't even about the OP topic. Best I can tell, it is part of an explanation of space-time continuum relating to quantum theory. It's kind of like using a children's Thanksgiving play as the basis for an argument supporting our glorious relationship with Native Americans.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


. 





you are in a state of delusion, physics is not a conveyor nor in any manner reciprocal for any action ... your faith is in Google, bossy ... and stop pontificating as though because you are unable to reconcile the Spiritual with the Physical it aplies to anyone else.

.


----------



## theword (May 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Those of you who put your faith in science will be deceived of what time, space and matter are. Only our Creator can teach us how He created everything. Time, space and matter are only illusions and so is everything we observe. In other words, nothing we experience is actually something real. It's only perceived as being real.


----------



## edthecynic (May 29, 2015)

theword said:


> nothing we experience is actually something real. It's only perceived as being real.


I suspected you are a Dippy Hippie! 

Nothing is real,
Strawberry Fields Forever.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> you are in a state of delusion, physics is not a conveyor nor in any manner reciprocal for any action ... your faith is in Google, bossy ... and stop pontificating as though because you are unable to reconcile the Spiritual with the Physical it aplies to anyone else.



I'm in a state of delusion for making an irrefutable physics argument? Where did I state physics is a conveyor or reciprocal for any action? Sounds like YOU are the one who is delusional, you keep reading crazy shit that isn't there that I never said. As for reconciling the spiritual with the physical, whenever you present some valid physics which supports spirituality, I am willing to listen. As far as I am aware, physics doesn't examine the spiritual because it can't observe it. In that respect, spirituality is in the same category as present time, non-observable and dependent upon faith. And this applies to everyone.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> As far as I am aware, physics doesn't examine the spiritual because it can't observe it. In that respect, spirituality is in the same category as present time, non-observable and dependent upon faith. And this applies to everyone.


. 
but bossy you are claiming present time is observed, (just) "delayed" requiring faith in its accuracy ... by something ?

physiology =/= cognizance ... as before they are apples and oranges, physiology sees nothing and is only responsive.

cognizance = present time </> physics


the OP simply is incapable of recognizing the cognizant connection to time but implies that same connection is only a physiological response,.

.


----------



## edthecynic (May 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> I'm in a state of delusion for making an irrefutable physics argument?


You are in a state of delusion for thinking your pontification is an argument of any kind!


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I am aware, physics doesn't examine the spiritual because it can't observe it. In that respect, spirituality is in the same category as present time, non-observable and dependent upon faith. And this applies to everyone.
> ...



I am not "claiming" anything, I am stating a fact that physics can't deny. We are unable to observe the moment of present time because we are constrained by physics in a physical universe. It doesn't matter if you call it "cognizance" or "perception" our ability to comprehend the present time is still bound by laws of physics. We cannot avoid this and we can't overcome it. 

I have not implied we're ONLY physiological beings, that is YOUR inference. The only thing physics can examine is what is physical, it can't evaluate spirituality. Therefore, in a purely physical argument, spirituality doesn't have a seat at the table. Spirituality is a matter of faith. However, so is perception of present time. That is the point of the OP.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in a state of delusion for making an irrefutable physics argument?
> ...



Well the argument stands until it is refuted. You've not refuted the argument. 

To "pontificate" is to speak or behave in a pompous or dogmatic manner. Admittedly, I can come across as quite pompous sometimes, especially when confronted by left-wing morons with a liberal agenda like you. But nothing I've said is dogmatic in any way and I've continually set people straight in this thread when they attempted to interject their religious dogma. 

My argument is not an opinion, it is an irrefutable physical fact. We can't observe the moment of present time because we are constrained by physics. Does it exist? We have faith that it does because that is our perception. Like God, we cannot observe, test or measure it, we must have faith to believe it exists as we perceive it in the past. 

This fact of life doesn't seem to sit well with you, but you can't form a coherent physical argument against it, so you have decided to play semantics games, try and derail the topic, throw ad homs at me personally, post sarcastic videos and off-topic graphics.... basically, anything you can think of doing other than accepting the argument made.


----------



## edthecynic (May 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You have yet to make an argument to refute, you simply pontificate and name drop "physics." Your pontifications have been thoroughly refuted by physics, but you are too delusional to see it in the present.


----------



## edthecynic (May 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> I am stating a fact that physics can't deny.


But the "fact" you are stating about observation and perception have nothing to do with how physics defines, measures or calculates the present time.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No, the OP makes an argument that human beings, being bound by physics, are unable to observe the moment known as "present time" and we rely on our faith in the perception we have of it after the fact. That's the argument you have not refuted.  I predict you can't refute it and you'll continue to try and turn the argument into something you can win or simply LIE LIE LIE LIE about what has been said thus far. 

So far, I have seen the hilarious _"Hollie's Theory of Instantaneous Perception"™  _in which we must suspend physics and assume that light doesn't need to travel and electric impulses don't need to transmit to our brain and our brain doesn't need to process the impulses into thought.... Seems a bit "magical" to me, and she never submitted anything of physics or science to support her faith.  Then we have your argument that physics and science _CAN_ measure and test something it can't observe. I've yet to see any credible support for your opinion. In fact, this is the 'go-to' argument for Atheist Science religious disciples in their Anti-God pontification. If Physics can actually measure and test that which cannot be observed, then it should be able to measure and test God.    ....I like it.... *G>U*  ...simple but elegant formula!


----------



## G.T. (May 29, 2015)

boss, just because ed articulates it like a dunce doesnt mean your op doesnt fall short bruvva


i will defer to my lovvey side and say i like ya man


but come on.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2015)

G.T. said:


> boss, just because ed articulates it like a dunce doesnt mean your op doesnt fall short bruvva
> 
> 
> i will defer to my lovvey side and say i like ya man
> ...



Well, if the OP "falls short" it seems we'd have some kind of coherent argument against it but we don't. Page after page we see people trying to circumvent the laws of physics or just outright ignore they exist, while stating opinions they can't base in science or physics. I point this out and they get mad at me and start calling me names. You've decided to take a page out of Alinsky and start declaring the argument has failed over and over until it becomes truth. That may very well be a good tactic for left-wing politicians trying to fool the stupid masses but I don't think it really works in an intellectual conversation on a public forum. I don't know if that is better than pretending to be science illiterate, one is as bad as the other in my opinion.


----------



## G.T. (May 29, 2015)

that we dont is a matter of opinion


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2015)

G.T. said:


> that we dont is a matter of opinion



That we don't what?  Have the ability to observe the present? No, it's a matter of physics... we don't. We have only a perception coming to us in the past, after the present has moved on. We have *faith* our perception reveals a present which is accurate but we cannot confirm it with any scientific means because it cannot be observed to verify this. So we are stuck in a dichotomy we can't escape and it's because we are physical beings who function in a physical universe bound by physical laws of nature.


----------



## edthecynic (May 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> the OP makes an argument that human beings, being bound by physics, are unable to observe the moment known as "present time" and we rely on our faith in the perception we have of it after the fact.


That is not an argument, it is a pontification contrary to physics. There is no Law of physics that requires the present to be observed to exist. You were challenged to produce such a law of physics, but all you do is re-pontificate the same BS.


----------



## edthecynic (May 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> the present has moved on


There you go again, contradicting your pontification again. The present had to be the present before it could "move on" to the past, independent of any observation.


----------



## edthecynic (May 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> we cannot confirm it with any scientific means because it cannot be observed to verify this.


Baloney!
We can observe a timepiece to verify scientifically and measure the movement of the present.


----------



## edthecynic (May 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> an intellectual conversation on a public forum.


If you think you are doing anything that even approaches intellectualism, you are on drugs! You are spewing pure sophistry!


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And for all boss's pontificating_, "Hollie's Theory of Instantaneous Perception"™ _remains unaddressed_. 
_
Sorry bossy, but your pontificating in attempted support of your silly_ Gawds=time™ _nonsense which you are unable to defend leaves you as just as another fundie zealot with baseless claims


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Of course we can observe the moment of present time. In spite of your whining to the contrary due to your religious fundamentalism, nothing in your false portrayal of physics refutes the above.

Speaking of false portrayals, still nothing to support your silly _gawds=time™, _ meme?


----------



## Sidekick (May 29, 2015)

Wasting someone's time by repeatedly denying what they're saying when you know damn well what they mean is no way to prove or disprove God, though it is sufficient evidence for the existence of Satan.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2015)

Sidekick said:


> Wasting someone's time by repeatedly denying what they're saying when you know damn well what they mean is no way to prove or disprove God, though it is sufficient evidence for the existence of Satan.


I'm not interested in disproving any gawds / gawds =time nonsense that bossy believes but is unable to support .


----------



## G.T. (May 29, 2015)

Boss is derp c


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > the OP makes an argument that human beings, being bound by physics, are unable to observe the moment known as "present time" and we rely on our faith in the perception we have of it after the fact.
> ...



*There is no Law of physics that requires the present to be observed to exist.*

And I am not calling the existence of present time into question. Just our ability to observe it. 

We can also say there is no law of physics which requires God to be observed to exist. Means the same thing.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...






Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



_*Hollie's Theory of Instantaneous Perception*™ _has been addressed. It fails the test of known physical principles. Nothing we can possibly perceive in a physical universe can happen instantly. Light has to travel, principles of physics have to function. When you touch things or hear things, nerves have to be stimulated and signals have to be sent to the brain, the brain has to transform the signals and interpret them as thoughts... then you realize a perception.  So that's lots of physics we have to completely dismiss in order to have faith in your theory.

And let's be careful with the trademark symbols, it's a violation of federal law to misuse them. I never said "_Gawds=time"  _so I want to make it clear that I am not the one violating copyright on that one. The thread title is "God... is Time" and in the OP it is fully explained what is meant by the title. What you have done is shown how a dishonest creep will take anything they can out of context to try and distort a message they don't want others to hear.


----------



## Boss (May 29, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss is derp c



And GT is the type of Derp who abandons intellectual discourse to be a juvenile and hurl ad homs when he can't make any further coherent argument. This is the saddest of all Derps.. kind of a 'Me Gusta' sort of Derp often making a Fap Fap sound from his brain trying to formulate thoughts. Poor Me Gusta Derp...


----------



## Imnukingfutz (May 29, 2015)

Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?



Science does accept things as fact without proof of existence. How else can you explain the fallacy of Man made global warming? LOL

As far as time and perception, We live in the present and input all our surroundings and events shaping our past as memory to learn from to go into the future.

God is the creator of everything...How God created it, why God created it, I dont have a clue, I expect some day Science will be able to tell us.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 29, 2015)

.
- bossy's stupidity OP continues ...


... but the Almighty is not bound by physiology nor the Spirit, it is the contrivance of Creation and the venomous to exalt fallacious and burdenous barriers against the willingness to Accomplish Remission to the Everlasting.


... faith be damned.

.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

Imnukingfutz said:


> As far as time and perception, We live in the present and input all our surroundings and events shaping our past as memory to learn from to go into the future.



Well of course we "live in the present" where else could we live? The past? The future? No one is arguing that we don't live in the present or have perception of the present. The OP is about human faith. We cannot observe the present, whether we are living in it or not. This is because the laws of physics must happen before we have perception, which means time has to pass, which means our perceptions are no longer in the present but are in the past. So the present exists and is there but by the time we perceive it, the present has passed. We rely on our faith in the perceptions we have of the present as being accurate depiction of the actual present. There is no way to prove that it is. 

This means the actual  moment of present time is as much a matter of human faith as God.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Boss said:


> No one is arguing that we don't live in the present or have perception of the present.


Actually, you deny the very existence of the present as you let it slip out when I pressed you on your statement of the "passage of time." You pontificated that time passes from the past to the more distant past, not from the present to the past.

Of course, liar that you are you will deny your denial.


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss is derp c
> ...


You get what you deserve. Your theory is dopey. I treat you like a dope.

Youre no more than my bitch, on the internet. Calling yourself boss is negligible.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> *Time is God and God is Time*. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. *We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present.* *We can divide Time into past, present and future.* We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because *evidence exists* in the past that seems to confirm this. *If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?*


A perfect example of your self contradiction. 
You admit that in physics time is a dimension that is divided into past, present and future. Those are definitions that in no way require perception or faith to exist.

You admit that evidence of the present exists in the past, and then in the very next breath you deny the existence of the very evidence you just acknowledged in order to claim that according to your pontificated modification of time requiring perception the awareness that a present has to exist requires faith and therefore equates to God.

Basically you are "arguing" that anything that involves faith equates to God. So by your own "logic" I have faith that your God is powerless and impotent to stop you from lying, therefore God is impotence and impotence is God.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Actually, you deny the very existence of the present as you let it slip out when I pressed you on your statement of the "passage of time." You pontificated that time passes from the past to the more distant past, not from the present to the past.
> 
> Of course, liar that you are you will deny your denial.



What the hell are you talking about? You've now gotten yourself so confused by trying to confound my argument that you're not even making any sense anymore. I don't know what you mean by "let it slip" ...like I'm somehow keeping a secret from you or something? Time passes, we have evidence time passes and I've never claimed that time didn't pass. Our perception of time passing is forever in the past because we can't fucking defy physics! Whatever we perceive as the present has already happened and is now in the past. It will get further in the past, it will never be in the future or present again.  It wasn't in the present when we had perception of it because our physical perception depends on the laws of physics to happen before we can perceive. Are you too fucking retarded to grasp this or something? I've now wasted several days trying all kinds of ways to explain this to you, and you seem as if you just don't fucking want to accept basic physics. 

Do you believe in _Hollie's Theory of Instantaneous Perception_™ where nothing requires time to happen?


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Well first of all it's not a theory. It's physics which are very much provable with experimentation. You've come nowhere close to refuting that and you can't because it's physics and can't be refuted... Light takes time to travel, electric impulses take time to travel, the brain has to process impulses into thoughts and perception... this all takes TIME happening, it doesn't happen magically without physics applying... that's fantasy. So no matter how long you try and keep this balloon of disagreement in the air, the fact remains you don't have a physical leg to stand on here. You're all floundering around trying to reject physics and looking like a bunch of morons.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, you deny the very existence of the present as you let it slip out when I pressed you on your statement of the "passage of time." You pontificated that time passes from the past to the more distant past, not from the present to the past.
> ...


And there you go again, playing dumb so you can create a Straw Man to free you to lie.

You claimed that time, NOT the "perception" of time, passes from the past to the more distant past in the part of my post that quoted you which you edited out to create your Straw Man.

Again you have shown no Law of Physics that requires the any perceptions in the defined division of the physical dimension of time into past present and future.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> It's physics which are very much provable with experimentation.


Hold on just a minute there Slick, Since you can't observe any experiment in the present, all experimentation takes faith and therefore proves nothing except that God is experimentation and experimentation is God.


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> This means the actual  moment of present time is as much a matter of human faith as God.


[/QUOTE]


"As much"


NO.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *Time is God and God is Time*. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. *We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present.* *We can divide Time into past, present and future.* We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because *evidence exists* in the past that seems to confirm this. *If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?*
> ...



There is nothing contradicting about my argument. Definitions don't require faith, I never claimed they did. I've not modified anything, don't have any idea what you're talking about and I don't think you know either. You're just flailing blindly because you don't want to give up. 

The present doesn't exist in the past, I never claimed it did. We have a perception of the present and that perception is happening after the present is gone forever. We can't observe the present because we have to wait for physics to happen. The only thing we can have is faith that our perception arriving in the past, presumably of the present, is an accurate representation of the actual present. You can bash on God all the hell you like, it doesn't change that you must have faith to believe the present is as we perceive it in the past because that's the truth.... physics must happen first.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > This means the actual  moment of present time is as much a matter of human faith as God.




"As much"


NO.[/QUOTE]

YES.


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



YES.[/QUOTE]
Nope.

Every moment that passes furthers the probability that the present is continuing to occur. 

This is increasing the probability of the present each time, to the tune of - as close to 100% probable as it can possibly get.

That you think the present requires AS MUCH faith as an unmeasured, non repeatable in terms of experimentation, entity called GOD, just shows the level of delusion and brainwash you suffered as a gullible little baby boy.

Fact, not fiction.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It's physics which are very much provable with experimentation.
> ...



We can observe that light travels at the speed of light and electrical impulses travel to the brain and that the brain process the impulses into thoughts and perceptions. We obviously don't need to observe the present to know these things because we know them and we can't observe the present. 

I'm sorry you want to keep pretending that you don't understand this, I know that you understand my argument and you simply don't want to admit it. WHY? Who the hell knows? Maybe so you can continue bashing God and being a social degenerate? For whatever reason, you've decided along with a few others here, that you're just going to keep rejecting what was presented without any basis and do everything you can to convince others that my argument has failed. Well, you haven't presented a damn thing to refute my argument and you can't. It's basic physics and you know it is.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Every moment that passes furthers the probability that the present is continuing to occur.



Your'e fucked in the head.


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Every moment that passes furthers the probability that the present is continuing to occur.
> ...


"the present requires as much faith as god"

and IM fucked in the head?

you're a fucking moron.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There you go again, creating a Straw Man to free you to lie and deny!

Dishonest lying scum that you are, made in the Image of God, you deliberately left out the word "EVIDENCE" to create your Straw Man, again proving God is impotence and impotence is God.
Thank you.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Every moment that passes furthers the probability that the present is continuing to occur.
> ...


You are fucked in the heart.


----------



## Muhammed (May 30, 2015)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


I extend my condolences regarding your mother's death. 

Most of us will have to deal with the grief resulting from the death of a parent.


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Hes gullible as fuck.

Theres no faith required that the present is occuring. 

When i am dead this will change. Boss is an absurdity.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 30, 2015)

.
- this thread only continues due to the OP's temper tantrum when asked to distinguish between physiological properties in registering events than the events themselves as being non relational to their interpretation.

.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> There you go again, creating a Straw Man to free you to lie and deny!
> 
> Dishonest lying scum that you are, made in the Image of God, you deliberately left out the word "EVIDENCE" to create your Straw Man, again proving God is impotence and impotence is God.
> Thank you.



Well sorry  but you were the one who left out words to start with. 

My comment was: "*We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past* that seems to confirm this." (the bold part is what you quoted, dropping the last few words, enhancing 5 words in the middle and changing the context of the sentence.) Then you reformed my statement into _"You admit that evidence of the present exists in the past"_  ...not what I said. 

Again... follow closely, idgit... *WE ASSUME* (you comprehend that, right?) Now what did we *assume?* We *assume* the present time happened.  _Why?_ Because evidence exists in the past that *seems* to confirm this. So I have had to break a fairly simple sentence down and spoon feed it to you like an illiterate baby. It's because you want to deliberately misconstrue everything I say... that's your only hope of winning the argument. 

The *present* can't exist in the *past* if the two fucking words have *any* significant meaning whatsoever. The present is a specific point in time which mortal humans are incapable of observing due to physics. No other time is the present or can ever BE the present. We have a *perception* of the present and we trust (have faith) that our perception is reliable, but we cannot prove this because we cannot observe the present to confirm it. 

You can rant and rave against God all you like but you still can't observe the moment of the present due to physical restraints which prohibit it. All you have is perception after-the-fact and *FAITH* in your perception.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Theres no faith required that the present is occuring.



Really? How do you know that it is occurring as you perceive it?


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> - this thread only continues due to the OP's temper tantrum when asked to distinguish between physiological properties in registering events than the events themselves as being non relational to their interpretation.
> 
> .



No, the thread continues because Eddy, GT, Hollie and yourself are on a liberal Saul Alinsky mission to destroy the argument through mindless ranting activism and propaganda. None of you want to be honest about the OP, you're constantly misquoting me, taking things I've said completely out of context and in your case, just randomly making up your own version of things that I never said. You've tried the tactic of personal denigration, public shame, ridicule, humiliation... none of it is working on me. I still keep pointing out how you've not addressed the OP argument.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> The *present* can't exist in the *past* if the two fucking words have *any* significant meaning whatsoever. The present is a specific point in time which mortal humans are incapable of observing due to physics.


There you go again, EVIDENCE of the present does indeed exist due to "physics." One need only OBSERVE the second hand of a clock move. Others are not burdened by your limitations.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Saul Alinsky


Now you've hit rock bottom!


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> you're constantly misquoting me, taking things I've said completely out of context


Yeah, play that perpetual VICTIM card, crybaby.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The *present* can't exist in the *past* if the two fucking words have *any* significant meaning whatsoever. The present is a specific point in time which mortal humans are incapable of observing due to physics.
> ...



Huh? The second hand of a clock can't move if time doesn't pass. So how does it move in the moment of present time? 

The only evidence of the present existing is our perception of it in the past. We cannot observe the present. We only have a perception we realize after the present is gone forever. We rely on faith in our perception that it is accurately depicting reality in the present but we cannot confirm this because we cannot observe the present. Faith is required. 

You can't observe the second hand of a clock in the moment of present time or any damn thing else because physics has to happen which takes time which means you're not in the present anymore, Toto.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 30, 2015)

You are thinking now about what you read that I was thinking when I wrote this.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> You are thinking now about what you read that I was thinking when I wrote this.



Everything you are capable of thinking is happening _*after*_ the moment of present time has passed. It seems a lot of people here think of "the present" as an arbitrary *period* of time and it's not. It is a specific *point* in time. The present doesn't wait for your brain to process incoming information, it continues to be a moving point which is elusive to our observation as physical beings because we're bound by physics. All we can have is a perception of time which has passed. 

We're now over 1000 replies and there still hasn't been a cohesive counter to the OP argument.


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Theres no faith required that the present is occuring.
> ...


Im not dead.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The movement of the second hand MEASURES the movement of time that we are observing.
Again, due to physics, the present does not require observation in the moment to be measured.

I can understand why you require faith that you are accurately depicting reality in your observations of the present, because you live in fantasyland. But you are atypical of sane people.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 30, 2015)

It has not been proved, nor can it be, that I am not experiencing the present. Proving everything identified as external to the satisfaction of one person does not prove to another that it is externally 'real'. If there is any faith involved, it is the faith of another that I am not experiencing the present. I know that I am. That is the ultimate proof that the present exists. Someone's belief that I am wrong is interesting at best.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Well I'm not dead either but that has nothing to do with how you know something you cannot possibly observe. 

No matter how alive you are, you cannot defy physics. Things must happen and time must pass for you to realize perception.... you do understand that, right? Your perception of the present cannot be realized in the present because physics has to happen for you to perceive it. Because physics has to happen, time has to pass, which means your perception of the present is in the past before you can even perceive it. 

It seems what you are confused about is perception not being observation. I can watch a movie projected on a screen and have the perception that soldiers are fighting in a war, but I realize my perception is not actually an observation in reality, men are not fighting a war in front of me, it's only a perception of something. if I were a cave man who had never heard of this technology, I might be inclined to have faith that my perception was reality and men were actually fighting a war before my very eyes. 

We cannot observe the moment of present time. If you want to post another 1,000 retorts, be my guest... that isn't going to change and you've not presented an argument to refute it. All you are doing is trying to run out the clock by being a dick jerky. I guess you all figure to keep on with this charade until I get frustrated and give up, then you can all slap each other on the back and celebrate victory, but I have plenty of time to continue pointing out how moronic you are.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> It has not been proved, nor can it be, that I am not experiencing the present. Proving everything identified as external to the satisfaction of one person does not prove to another that it is externally 'real'. If there is any faith involved, it is the faith of another that I am not experiencing the present. I know that I am. That is the ultimate proof that the present exists. Someone's belief that I am wrong is interesting at best.



Again, the argument is not whether or not we "experience" something. It is what we can physically observe and what is beyond our ability to observe. In order for us to actually observe the moment of present time, we would have to suspend physics and pretend things happen instantly without time, and that isn't supportable by physics. Our perception is a byproduct of time passing, we ASSUME the present is as we perceive it, we cannot prove it is.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Again, if you have discovered a way for physics to measure something which cannot be observed, you've figured out the physics to prove the existence of God. I am very interested in your formula for this, as I am sure many would be. 

The measurement of time which has already passed has not a damn thing to do with the moment of present time or our inability to observe it.


----------



## G.T. (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No matter how daft you are, i am alive = the present is occuring.

No faith necessary


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


_*Hollie's Theory of Instantaneous Perceptio*_s not been addressed. Pontificating as you do and making references to science principles that exist only in your world of *Bossy physics™* doesn't give anyone confidence that you're able to operate in the rational world.

It's both dishonest and a fraud to open a thread claiming gawds=time™ and then pontificate, sidestep and backtrack when you're tasked with supporting such a false claim


Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


*Hollie's Theory of Instantaneous Perceptions *has not been addressed. Pontificating as you do and making references to science principles that exist only in your world of *Bossy physics™* doesn't give anyone confidence that you're able to operate in the rational world. 

It's both dishonest and a fraud to open a thread claiming gawds=time™ and then pontificate, sidestep and backtrack when you're tasked with supporting such a false claim. You're certainly free to proselytize for your extremist religious beliefs, but to suggest your pontificating is anything but a hack is a bit silly.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Gravity is a "something" which can be measured but not observed.

They didn't teach you that at the _*Jerry Falwell School for the Inept™?*_


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > You are thinking now about what you read that I was thinking when I wrote this.
> ...


You have failed to make a cohesive argument. Gawds=time™ is merely a religious claim you have made, absent any coherent argument.


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Another example of _*Bossy Physics for the Silly®*_

The hands on a clock will move in a predetermined speed because they are mechanical devices designed to do just that.

Unless you're suggesting that because *gawds=time©*, the clock hands won't move without the magical intervention of your gawds of the spirit realms?
_*
*_


----------



## Hollie (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You have made no rational case for an inability to observe present time.


----------



## PostmodernProph (May 30, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


you have to wait until he sees your post......(she won't get that, will she.....)


----------



## Imnukingfutz (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> Imnukingfutz said:
> 
> 
> > As far as time and perception, We live in the present and input all our surroundings and events shaping our past as memory to learn from to go into the future.
> ...



We most certainly observe the present...that was my point. The millisecond after we observe it , we process it and it becomes the past in which we create memories and learn from. The present is such a minute tiny minuscule time period, but we most certainly observe it...


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

Imnukingfutz said:


> We most certainly observe the present...that was my point. The millisecond after we observe it , we process it and it becomes the past in which we create memories and learn from. The present is such a minute tiny minuscule time period, but we most certainly observe it...



Well.. no we don't. You are now articulating _Hollie's Theory of Instantaneous Perception_™ which is not rooted in physics but magic... where light and electric impulses don't need to travel and the brain doesn't need to process anything. We don't observe the present, we can't observe the present. We always have to wait for physics to happen. Anything we are capable of perceiving as physical beings requires time to pass which means we don't perceive it in the present which has moved on. 

Again, the moment of present is not a "minuscule time period" as you've incorrectly stated, it is a specific point of time. Now, perhaps  you don't understand how physics work like Hollie, but light has to travel, nerves have to be stimulated, electric impulses have to travel to the brain and create cognizant perception. These things ALL require time and cannot happen until time passes, which means we're not in the present moment anymore.


----------



## Boss (May 30, 2015)

G.T. said:


> No matter how daft you are, i am alive = the present is occuring.
> 
> No faith necessary



And no matter how daft you are, I am not going to allow you to lie about the argument. I have never said that the present isn't occurring. That has never been the argument. Faith is required to believe our perception of the present, happening after the fact, is correct. We cannot observe the moment of present time due to physics having to happen first, which takes time, which means the present has passed.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> We don't observe the present, we can't observe *the present*. We always have to wait for physics to happen. Anything we are capable of perceiving as physical beings requires time to pass which means we don't perceive *it* in the present which has moved on.


The "it" we perceive IS "the present" no matter how long the delay. No matter the the delay in processing. the present was the present when it was first observed before processing.


----------



## edthecynic (May 30, 2015)

Boss said:


> We cannot observe the moment of present time due to physics having to happen first, which takes time, which means the present has passed.


Due to physics, the present does not require observation.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We don't observe the present, we can't observe *the present*. We always have to wait for physics to happen. Anything we are capable of perceiving as physical beings requires time to pass which means we don't perceive *it* in the present which has moved on.
> ...



No.. "it" is what we perceive. The delay is what is the issue. Delay simply confirms you understand some time has passed. If some time has passed, it is no longer present. Our perception resides in the past, hopelessly trapped there by physics. We cannot ever observe the present because we can't defy physics. Does it exist as we perceive it in the past? We have faith that it does.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Due to physics, the present does not require observation.



Neither does God.... both rely on faith.


----------



## edthecynic (May 31, 2015)

Boss said:


> The delay is what is the issue.


The delay is meaningless, so you have no issue!


----------



## G.T. (May 31, 2015)

This dude makes absolutely no sense.
Theres zero reason to believe our percepti9n is off.
The beginning of the thread I CAN QUOTE YOU saying we need faith there EVEN IS A PRESENT.

I CAN QUOTE YOU, DUDE.

NOW, I can quote you later saying youre not saying we cant know theres a present, but that we cant know our perception of it is accurate.


YOU FLIP FLOPPED AGAIN. JUST LIKE EARLIER WHEN I EXPOSED YOU, ILL DO IT AGAIN. YOU CALLED IT PLAYING "GOTCHA," I CALLED YOU AN IMMATURE TROLL WHO JUST WANTS TO ARGUE.



If we're perceiving the present as the past we are still percieving it, dumbfuck. Zero basis to believe the perception is off. None. Zip, zilzh, nadda.

Further, the present is proven to exist by physics.

No faith required. 

And to know the present continues to exist, all you need to know is that you are alive.

I know i am alive. Cogito ergo sum.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The delay is what is the issue.
> ...



Uhm... A delay means EVERYTHING when talking about a specific point in time. 

The fact that you have now admitted twice there is a "delay" means you understand (and accept) the OP argument, that humans cannot observe the moment of present time and our perception is happening (delayed) in the past.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2015)

G.T. said:


> This dude makes absolutely no sense.
> Theres zero reason to believe our percepti9n is off.
> The beginning of the thread I CAN QUOTE YOU saying we need faith there EVEN IS A PRESENT.
> 
> ...



There's zero reason to believe God doesn't exist. Lots of people believe things for no reason. However, if you cannot observe it then you must have faith it exists. 

You have a perception of the present but it comes to you in the past, after the present is no more. Your faith is in your perception being accurate. You can't prove that it is unless you can observe the present to verify this, which we already established, can't be done. 

Now, misconstruing what I've said and trying to claim that I've argued the present doesn't really exist... that's desperation. I've not said that. You want to infer this because it makes me sound nutty, but it's not something I have said so it's just you lying your ass off to try and win an argument you cannot win. 

*If we're perceiving the present as the past we are still percieving it, dumbfuck.*

There is no "if" about this. You understand physics, right? Our perception relies on physics having to happen first, which means time passes, which means by the time you perceive it,  the present is gone... outta here... vamoose! 

Now... we  ARE perceiving something, this is true. And we have faith that what we perceive is the actual present moment of time. However, in science we have to be able to observe and test things to confirm they exist.... remember, that's why science can't prove or disprove God. The moment of present time is elusive, we cannot observe it because of physics. 

*Further, the present is proven to exist by physics.*

Again, if you've developed a formula where physics can prove what cannot be observed, then you've unlocked the physical formula for God and you should share this with the world... there's probably a Nobel Peace Prize in it for you!


----------



## G.T. (May 31, 2015)

I have faith in my perception wtfff...of course i do.

If you have no faith in your perception tou cant argue anything period.

And if faith in your perception is equal to the faith required to believe in god .  ..for you, and your perception.....i believe you should be in a mental institution so that you do not injure innocent people in your wake of frivolity


----------



## BreezeWood (May 31, 2015)

Boss said:


> [ The moment of present time is elusive, we cannot observe it because of physics.


.
it is not elusive and is invariable.

... now go have a temper tantrum - 


who has faith in God will perish, good riddance.

.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2015)

G.T. said:


> I have faith in my perception wtfff...of course i do.
> 
> If you have no faith in your perception tou cant argue anything period.
> 
> And if faith in your perception is equal to the faith required to believe in god .  ..for you, and your perception.....i believe you should be in a mental institution so that you do not injure innocent people in your wake of frivolity



I don't know why you seem to want to define "faith" as some kind of measured variable. It's like saying something that is 20% true is more true than something that is only 10% true. Makes no sense whatsoever because truth is truth. Something is either truth or not truth. 

Faith is faith, no matter how much of it you think you have or don't have. If you believe in something that cannot be observed, then you have faith. Period. 

The OP argument is quite simple. The same faith that we have in our perception of the present time, which we can never observe directly due to physics, is no different than faith in a God we can never observe directly. Both are proof that things can exist beyond our ability to observe as physical beings.


----------



## G.T. (May 31, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I have faith in my perception wtfff...of course i do.
> ...


Faith is not faith.

There are levels to faith necessary versus probabilities. Quit being a daft prick.

Youre too dopey for comprehension.


----------



## edthecynic (May 31, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I have trashed the OP at least 25 times already, what time dimension have you been in? We clearly observe the moment of the present time after the delay. Just because there is a delay does not alter what we observed, and if you claim that YOU must prove it.

Again, any delay due to light moving from point A to point B is meaningless to support the claim in your moronic OP that "*We assume Time exists.*" Time is not an assumption, it is a dimension, defined as past, present and future. There is nothing in the definition that requires observation. That is BS you inserted.


----------



## edthecynic (May 31, 2015)

Boss said:


> The OP argument is quite simple. The same faith that we have in our perception of the present time, which* we can never observe directly* due to physics, is no different than faith in a God we can never observe directly. Both are proof that things can exist beyond our ability to observe as physical beings.


But we DO observe what happened in the present DIRECTLY. Any delay does not change our direct observation. Delay does not = change.


----------



## Hollie (May 31, 2015)

Boss said:


> Imnukingfutz said:
> 
> 
> > We most certainly observe the present...that was my point. The millisecond after we observe it , we process it and it becomes the past in which we create memories and learn from. The present is such a minute tiny minuscule time period, but we most certainly observe it...
> ...


The facts I presented to regarding our perception of the present obviously reduces your false presentation of Bossy Physics as a pointless claim.


----------



## Treeshepherd (May 31, 2015)

Boss said:


> We can't observe Time in the present or future



I only read the first few posts of this thread. Just arrived late is all, not sure if I want to read 105 pages.

I wouldn't say that God is time, but I would be inclined to say that God* is like* time in the manner that you describe.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Faith is not faith.
> 
> There are levels to faith necessary versus probabilities.



Well, not really. Faith is faith. You either have faith or you don't. When you hear people say "I don't have much faith in...whatever" it is essentially saying you don't have any faith. You can't have 30% faith or 59% faith. Probability merely induces faith. 

Faith is the belief in something that isn't observable.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Oh, you keep trashing the OP but you just haven't presented a valid scientific argument to refute it and you can't. That's why we keep seeing you say silly shit that I didn't say and trying to pretend THAT is my argument. For instance, I have NEVER said "We assume time exists."  No doubt, I have used all of those words in a sentence... but there were other words around them and it completely changes the context of what is said. You've been trying to pull this since page 1 and I've caught it every time and will continue to point it out when you do it. 

The fact that it is physically impossible for us to observe the present is very important to the point that we cannot observe the present. I'm sorry if that flies over your pointy little head but it's the truth. I'm sorry if it rubs you the wrong way... still the truth. 

Again, for the mentally challenged.... IF you cannot observe it, you cannot test or measure it with Science. You can't claim that you can when you can't. You also cannot claim it doesn't make any difference when you don't know if it does. You can only have FAITH that it doesn't make any difference. Obviously, your faith is strong and that's fine... perhaps this will cause you to be more respectful of people who have faith that God exists?  ...ya, I know, wishful thinking there!


----------



## Treeshepherd (May 31, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Is your avatar a picture of Johnson from Peep Show?


----------



## Treeshepherd (May 31, 2015)




----------



## Treeshepherd (May 31, 2015)

No, not quite.


----------



## Treeshepherd (May 31, 2015)

Anyway, Boss, I like your style.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2015)

Treeshepherd said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > We can't observe Time in the present or future
> ...



Well, I can save you a lot of time. The first two or three pages, all points are addressed in detail. After that, the thread has mostly devolved into God-haters doing what they love to do most, bashing God and anything religious. There is a group of about 4 morons who have decided to filibuster the thread with repeated claims the OP has been refuted and has failed... it's the old Saul Alinsky tactic of repeating the lie until it becomes the truth. This has gone on for the last 100 pages, so no need to wade through all of that, it is meaningless drivel. 

As I have indicated earlier, the thread title is a bit allegorical in nature. This is not a theological debate and it's not about religious incarnations of God or any particular dogma. It's more about *human faith* than anything else. As we must have faith to believe the present exists as we are perceiving it in the past, after the fact, we also must have faith in the existence of God.


----------



## Treeshepherd (May 31, 2015)

Boss, I really think you're on the right track.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2015)

Treeshepherd said:


> Is your avatar a picture of Johnson from Peep Show?


Paterson Joseph, yes.


----------



## Treeshepherd (May 31, 2015)

Boss said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> > Is your avatar a picture of Johnson from Peep Show?
> ...



Your posts are thought provoking. I enjoy them.


----------



## BreezeWood (May 31, 2015)

Boss said:


> The fact that it is physically impossible for us to observe the present is very important to the point that we cannot observe the present.


.
you seem drunk on your self styled revisionist revelation ... its open carry time for the martyred believers of faith.


basing your belief on the restrictions of physiology seems a little odd considering the well known fact not a soul on the planet believes a body does not expire.

why isn't your faith, based on planed obsolescence a dead end from the very beginning ?


* as stated before, the Spirit is not physically restrained ... (observation) ?

.


----------



## edthecynic (May 31, 2015)

Boss said:


> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false.* We assume Time exists,* we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. *We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present.*





Boss said:


> For instance, I have NEVER said "We assume time exists." No doubt, I have used all of those words in a sentence... but there were other words around them and it completely changes the context of what is said.


The words around "We assume Time exists" do NOT change the context in any way. In fact you admit the past contains evidence of the present we previously perceived.


----------



## edthecynic (May 31, 2015)

Boss said:


> The fact that it is physically impossible for us to observe the present is very important to the point that we cannot observe the present.


Actually we can physically observe the present, you have only asserted there is a delay in that observation but in no way have you proven that the delay changes the observation.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false.* We assume Time exists,* we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. *We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present.*
> ...



No sir.. when you take words out of a sentence it changes the meaning of the sentence entirely. As I said, you've done this the entire thread and I've wasted loads of time clarifying what was said. It's a deliberate tactic you are using to confuse the reader and infer that I've made statements I didn't make. 

I've never denied the past contains evidence of the present we previously perceived. But our perception did not happen in the present, it can't because of physics. I also corrected the statement you are misquoting back on page 1, shortly after posting it and realizing my error. I should have stated "We assume time_* in the present*_ exists, we cannot *observe* the moment of _*present*_ time." 

Observation is very important in Science. Let's have an analogy to prove this... Pretend we put two mice in a cage in a lab and we leave them unobserved overnight... the next morning we arrive to find there are now seven mice instead of two. We did not observe what happened. We can draw all kinds of conclusions... maybe they reproduced? Maybe one of them was pregnant? Maybe someone came into the lab and put more mice in the cage while we weren't there? Maybe we miscounted? Lots of possibilities exist, we don't know the answer because we didn't observe what happened. We can make assumptions, we can calculate probabilities, and we can have faith in our predictions, but we cannot prove something we can't observe. 

You can say it makes no difference that our perception lags behind the present but how do you know if you cannot observe the present to verify this? Faith is all you can rely on.


----------



## Manonthestreet (May 31, 2015)

Revelation 22:13 *I am* Alpha and Omega, *the beginning and the end*, *the first* and the last.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that it is physically impossible for us to observe the present is very important to the point that we cannot observe the present.
> ...



Again, I don't have to prove anything. We cannot physically observe the present and the admission there is a "delay" is proof that we can't. Our only observation is of a perception we assume to be accurate which happens after the fact. The only way to PROVE our perception is accurate would be if we could possibly observe the moment of present time to confirm there was no change in reality. We can't due to physics. We must have faith in our perception. Nothing wrong with that, it's the same faith we have in God.


----------



## Boss (May 31, 2015)

Treeshepherd said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Treeshepherd said:
> ...



Thank you. It means a lot to hear this.


----------



## edthecynic (May 31, 2015)

Boss said:


> Observation is very important in Science.


Liar!
Observation is never a proof in science. You just make shit up and then pontificate as God.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> The only way to PROVE our perception is accurate would be if we could possibly observe the moment of present time to confirm there was no change in reality.


Pure bullshit!


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Observation is very important in Science. Let's have an analogy to prove this... Pretend we put two mice in a cage in a lab and we leave them unobserved overnight... the next morning we arrive to find there are now seven mice instead of two. We did not observe what happened. We can draw all kinds of conclusions... maybe they reproduced? Maybe one of them was pregnant? Maybe someone came into the lab and put more mice in the cage while we weren't there? Maybe we miscounted? Lots of possibilities exist, we don't know the answer because we didn't observe what happened. We can make assumptions, we can calculate probabilities, and we can have faith in our predictions, but *we cannot prove something we can't observe*.


A scientist would record the mice in the cage and thus would be able to prove what happened overnight, that he didn't directly observe in the present, by simply watching the video.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Observation is very important in Science.
> ...



You see? Here is a classic example of a moron not reading the same thing that is written. I didn't say observation is proof... where did that come from?

very important =/=  proof ...does it??? Apparently so if you're Eddy!

Science cannot evaluate that which cannot be observed. This has always been the primary 'go-to' argument for Atheists who reject God. If you've found some way for Science to evaluate what isn't observable, then you've unlocked one of the greatest enigmas ever known to man... you've unlocked the secret to proving God with Science! Unfortunately, you're too dumb to open your box of Cheerios without help, so I am sure you haven't stumbled upon such a profound formula.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Observation is very important in Science. Let's have an analogy to prove this... Pretend we put two mice in a cage in a lab and we leave them unobserved overnight... the next morning we arrive to find there are now seven mice instead of two. We did not observe what happened. We can draw all kinds of conclusions... maybe they reproduced? Maybe one of them was pregnant? Maybe someone came into the lab and put more mice in the cage while we weren't there? Maybe we miscounted? Lots of possibilities exist, we don't know the answer because we didn't observe what happened. We can make assumptions, we can calculate probabilities, and we can have faith in our predictions, but *we cannot prove something we can't observe*.
> ...



But now you are taking the analogy out of context. We're discussing what can be proven when observation is not an option. Simply watching the video is observation. So you've defeated the purpose of the analogy. Now, if Science could unlock the secret of time travel and go into the future so as to be able to view the present as it happens directly, then you may have something.... but we don't know how to do that. All we can do is rely on a perception which happens in the past, after the present has gone.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The only way to PROVE our perception is accurate would be if we could possibly observe the moment of present time to confirm there was no change in reality.
> ...




Except that, it's NOT.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Faith is not faith.
> ...


cuz you say so?

no.

if i flip 100 heads out of 100 on a weighted coin, it is observable that the probability of heads thus far is 100%, and it is observable that the next flip is 99.9999999% likely to BE heads. 

The next flip doesnt require as much faith as - say - being dealt black jack 3 times straight from a fair deck. 


Only the MOST intelligent minds on the planet can figure out what probabilities do for us. i.e. middle school graduates. Sorry you were left behind.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nothing in your slogans and cliches' does anything to support your claims for _Bossy's Newfangled Physics_ or _Gawds=time_. 

Of course, we can observe present time. Your implementation of _Bossy's Newfangled Physics _ reeks of the tactics used by any number of Christian fundie organizations / creationist wackjobs in an attempt to force their dogma into secular matters.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Science certainly can evaluate that which cannot be observed. You were previously an example: gravity.

You tend to get so deep into your pontificating that you lose track of your silliness that has been refuted as pointless pontification.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



You are now talking about faith in known odds of probability which isn't really what we're talking about. That kind of faith is not unusual, we all have faith in gravity working as it always has. It's because the evidence is observable and verifiable. 

We can call this "faith" but it is really more of a confidence in odds. I can jump off a high dive and have confidence I will land safely in the water below. I don't know for certain that I will... a giant wind gust could come along and blow me into the parking lot. I am fairly confident that isn't likely to happen. 

So there is a distinct difference in the kind of faith we are discussing, where observation of something is not possible and we have to rely on faith. In that context (which is this argument) faith is faith. Either ya got it or ya don't.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Gravity, or the effects of gravity, is observable and testable.

*"Science certainly can evaluate that which cannot be observed."~Dingbat*

Anything can be "evaluated" whether it's observed or not. Science can't perform scientific experiments and evaluate them, test or measure them on something that isn't observable. You can't give ANY examples of this because it flies in the face of the scientific method.

Hollie, you haven't refuted jack shit here.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I am alive .... check.
I can observe the present, as it was..... check.


The present is verifiable by virtue of my fucking pulse. No faith required. 

Then, there is physics which resolve to time being past, present and future and are FAR more reliable than one of boss' half cocked god theories.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And actually.... probability/odds do factor into this.

The present continues to happen.
The universe is measured and defined, we have an idea of what its doing and there is x level of confidence it doesnt just cease.


Of fucking course the odds are a factor


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I understand you're angry that you have difficulty composing coherent sentences, but your pontificating will result in exactly that. 

*"Science cannot evaluate that which cannot be observed™"*
*~Braindead
*
Sorry to have to again point out your lack of science vocabulary but I'm sure you're accustomed to that happening often.

Science can evaluate gravity in spite of the force of gravity not being observed. There are other examples but we can wait to present those as a way to refute your next collection of pointless pontifications.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



*Boss'ism:*

_faith is faith. Either ya got it or ya don't™_

Aw shucks, bossy. Such cute witticism must get chuckles at your bible study meetings but they're otherwise pointless as argumentation. 

You make the mistake common among religious zealots of confusing empirical trust with belief in partisan gawds. 

That's alright, though. As religious fundamentalists go, you are common.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 1, 2015)

.
faith is nothing more than an educated guess without merit till verified.

.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



*I am alive .... check. [never said you weren't]
I can observe the present, as it was..... check. [you don't know this]*

*The present is verifiable by virtue of my fucking pulse. No faith required. [no, it's not verifiable because it cannot be observed.]
*
Why does it seem like we're just going in circles here? You've posted the same thing several times already and posting it again won't make it any more accurate. Time has nothing to do with whether YOU are alive! Believe it or not, TIME will continue after your ass is dead! So why do you think you being alive is relevant? ...I'm alive, therefore God exists!  That's basically YOUR argument applied to God! 

You can observe a perception of the present in the past, after the present has passed. You have no way to verify or confirm that what you perceive is as it was because you can never observe "as it was" to find out. You're simply making the assumption based on faith. 

*Then, there is physics which resolve to time being past, present and future...*

Well no, physics doesn't "resolve" anything, we have defined time as past, present and future. Physics is the limitation on physical beings in a physical universe which prevents us from ever observing the moment of present time. The present time occurs and passes before we can perceive it. We have to wait for physics to happen. 

I get your argument it's just a failure. You are trying to argue that our perception happening in the past reveals the actual present, but you haven't proven this and you can't because physics won't allow it. You can't observe the present to confirm your theory. You rely on *FAITH* in your perception, that's *ALL* you can do as a physical being.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Science can evaluate gravity in spite of the force of gravity not being observed.



You are an idiot if you don't think gravitational force is observable!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Science can evaluate gravity in spite of the force of gravity not being observed.
> ...


It was you who pontificated that:
*
"Science cannot evaluate that which cannot be observed™"*
*~Braindead
*
I corrected your baseless opinion that gravity is a force that can be evaluated but not observed.

Try paying attention.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

G.T. said:


> And actually.... probability/odds do factor into this.
> 
> The present continues to happen.



...And we continue to be unable to observe it!  

We have a perception of it happening in the past. You trust that your perception happening after the fact is correct but you can never prove it because the moment of present time is non-observable to physical beings. This means you simply have *FAITH* the present is as you are perceiving it.

Now... please tell me how many more times are we going to go through this? A dozen? Two dozen? Are we going to still be here next year? How long does it generally take for irrefutable arguments to penetrate your thick head?


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



But we observe gravitational force every day! What the hell do you think keeps you from being flung out into space? Or the moon revolving around the Earth or the Earth around the Sun? 

Are you confusing sight with observation again?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


We have faith regarding your inability to focus. It was you who pontificated that:
*
"Science cannot evaluate that which cannot be observed™"*
*~Braindead*

We observe the _affects_ of gravity. Gravity is a force much like electromagnetism which affects are observable*.*


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> You can't observe the present to confirm your theory. You rely on *FAITH* in your perception, that's *ALL* you can do as a physical being.


.
observing the present does not rely on faith as the faith would only occur after the presence is experienced - the physical components of an organism are distinct from its cognitive response.

.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> We observe the _affects_ of gravity. Gravity is a force much like electromagnetism which affects are observable*.*



Geeez... The EFFECTS of gravity is what gravity IS, stupid! We observe it, we measure it, we do calculations with it all the time. It is not something that isn't observable.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 1, 2015)

Correct my argument is irrefutable and boss is a dunce game over.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > We observe the _affects_ of gravity. Gravity is a force much like electromagnetism which affects are observable*.*
> ...


Ummm. No. What you see are the affects of gravity. Gravity is, effectively, an invisible force that acts on objects. Describe for us what gravity looks like. When you're done, describe what electromagnetism looks like. What shape, color, physical appearance can you identify?


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Correct my argument is irrefutable and boss is a dunce game over.



Post 1079 above, your argument was destroyed.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




Again, something doesn't have to be visible to be observable. We observe the effects of gravity and that's what gravity is. Electromagnetism, same deal. You are *ignorantly* misinterpreting "vision" and "sight" to mean observation. There are many things that are not visible, that we cannot see, but we can still *observe* them. What we _*cannot*_ observe is the moment of present time. We have to wait for physics to provide a perception in the past.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Science can evaluate gravity in spite of the force of gravity not being observed.
> ...



I see you're revising your argument as you were corrected for falsely claiming gravity is observable. Yet another of your backstrokes and waffles when your silly pontificating leaves you with a trail of false claims.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yet another backstroke and waffle.

Obviously, we can observe the present. None of your frantic appeals to _gawds=time_™ will revise the _Boss'isms_™ that are a source of such snickering and ridicule.

You are frantically trying to sidestep and waffle regarding your ignorance with regard to science and physics.

You should realize by now that the more you pontificate, the more you make yourself a cartoon character of the blustering, ignorant religious zealot, utterly inept at grown up conversation.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You can't observe the present to confirm your theory. You rely on *FAITH* in your perception, that's *ALL* you can do as a physical being.
> ...



I've stopped trying to figure out what the hell you're saying. Why do you post in such a broken and distorted manner? It's almost as if English isn't your first language and you are trying to use too many words in order to sound more sophisticated. You should slow your mind down a bit and try to form coherent and shorter sentences. When people read your posts, it's like trying to decipher a riddle. I literally have NO idea what you're talking about here. 

We don't observe the present. We can't observe the present because we have to wait for physics to happen. What we end up with is a perception, not an observation, happening after the present has moved on. Does the perception we have match the reality of the present? We can't know because we can't observe the present to verify it.  We have faith it does.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Yet another backstroke and waffle.



Nope... just more of your silly banter.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Of course we can observe the present. Pointless appeals to your gawds is a poor substitute for your lack of a science vocabulary.


Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another backstroke and waffle.
> ...


Eyup...... You're stuttering and mumbling because your attempt at argument is inept and requires appeals to your imagined spirit realms.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


.


> *bossy:* I've stopped trying to figure out what the hell you're saying. Why do you post in such a broken and distorted manner?



*one sentence with two parts is to much for you to understand ...*



> observing the present does not rely on faith as the faith would only occur after the presence is experienced - the physical components of an organism are distinct from its cognitive response.





ok, we'll just go with the first part:


> observing the present does not rely on faith as the faith would only occur after the presence is experienced -





to answer the question of physics was the second part;


> the physical components of an organism are distinct from its cognitive response.




hope that helps ....

.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Again, something doesn't have to be visible to be observable. We observe the effects of gravity and that's what gravity is. Electromagnetism, same deal. You are *ignorantly* misinterpreting "vision" and "sight" to mean observation. There are many things that are not visible, that we cannot see, but we can still *observe* them.


Not according to Bossy's stupid Law of Observation. Any effect of gravity we try to observe takes time, due to physics, to reach our eyes and therefore does not exist in the present to be observed. For example, if we observe a falling body, due to physics we cannot know except by faith that the body is actually falling.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Correct my argument is irrefutable and boss is a dunce game over.
> ...


Umm no. I have zero reason to believe what I perceive is incorrect. Like I said earlier maybe you need a mental institution but I don't


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Of course we can observe the present.



Well... No we can't, Hollie. I've already explained why it's impossible and you seem to be the only person in the forum who doesn't understand it. We cannot observe the moment of present time. Physics has to give us a perception first, which takes time,  which means the present is not observed. 

We have a perception of the present and we have faith our perception is accurately depicting what the moment of present was. We can't confirm this because we cannot observe the present, we are bound by physics. 

Again, for all you Einstein's in training out there... If you've found a way for Science or Physics to test and measure something that cannot be observed, you have unlocked the scientific formula for proving God. Let church bells ring, glory, glory, hallelujah! 

I maintain that you have proven no such thing and you can't prove it.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again, something doesn't have to be visible to be observable. We observe the effects of gravity and that's what gravity is. Electromagnetism, same deal. You are *ignorantly* misinterpreting "vision" and "sight" to mean observation. There are many things that are not visible, that we cannot see, but we can still *observe* them.
> ...



Wrong. 

If you try to observe a falling body without time, does the body fall? No. The moment of present time is not a *period* of time, it is a specific *point* in time. Time doesn't *pass* _during_ the present.  You can't observe anything until physics happens. It doesn't matter that you can't observe gravity in the present, nothing can be observed in the present, there is no time for anything to be observed. The present is a point in time, not a period of time.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Of course we can observe the present.
> ...


Our perception is literally the observation twat


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Of course we can observe the present.
> ...


Well, yes we can observe the present. I have no reason to accept that your invented version bossy physics / faith in gawds is a requirement for our perception of reality.

And yes, it is a simple matter for science to test and measure something that cannot be observed: gravity is one such example. Here's a bit of enlightenment for you: nothing about gravity proves your gawds or anyone  else's gawds.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



We have faith that it is.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No. 

Its reality.

Comparing it to faith in god is nutter bullshit.

Your thread is retarded and ill continue to point it out until it dies. And youll continue to flail, change definitions, contradict yourself and be all around ignorant.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Wrong.

According to the ignorant BOOB Bossy, you cannot observe a falling body, you only have faith that it is falling because, due to physics, during the time it takes the light from the falling body to reach your eye and then for your brain to process the perception, the body could be rising or even disappear along with the rest of the universe.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 1, 2015)

I just read something on relativity, physicists believe time is another dimension like the X, Y, or Z axis in space. And time is like the groves on a record player, it exist in it's  entity all at once. Time is an illusion, like the needle  of a record player playing a grove, and  humans are like the needles of that record player. That groove existed all the time, we just follow it. Not God, definitely not.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No we can't observe the present. We can have a perception of the present which arrives after the fact and we can have faith this perception represents the present. You've presented nothing from science or physics to refute this and you can't. 

Gravity doesn't come from the Magic Spaghetti Monster of Gravity in the sky, it is a physical force that we can observe, test and measure. The same applies to Electromagnetism. And again, if you've unlocked the formula for science to test and measure what cannot be observed, you have unlocked the greatest enigma of mankind.. a scientific formula for God. Oops!


----------



## MaryL (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There within lay the eternal question  a three year old might ask in Sunday school: WHAT made GOD? Well, wise guy?


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I've not changed or contradicted anything. My OP argument remains solid and irrefutable. You clearly understand that we can't physically observe the moment of present time, but that only puts you one small step ahead of Hollie Airbrains. You want to  argue that our perception happening after-the-fact is just automatically confirmed to be accurate because, well just because you think it is. But if you cannot observe the present to confirm it,  how do you know? You've still offered no explanation. 

The answer is very simple. You have faith in your perception of the present. We all do, that's all we can have because we cannot observe the present. So you get that far and you want to start micromanaging faith, like it's some kind of commodity that varies. Faith is faith, you either have faith in something or you don't. If you want to play the odds game, I would say the odds of God existing is the same as the odds of present time existing as we perceive it.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yes, we can observe the present. Your objection to that is your need to have a gap to squeeze your gawds into.  You invent a scenario whereby your gawds are thus a requirement for existence. 

The obvious flaw with your religious fundamentalist view of reality is that you have offered no evidence in support of your gawds.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

MaryL said:


> There within lay the eternal question  a three year old might ask in Sunday school: WHAT made GOD? Well, wise guy?



Well, this thread is not meant to be a theological argument on God. I made that clear in the OP and I've repeatedly tried to keep it out of the theology area because threads tend to get bogged down in the same old cliched arguments. 

But because you asked in earnest, let me present MY OPINION... I believe in a spiritual God, not a physical one. When you say "made" it indicates to me something physical. I don't know that spiritual things require being "made" because they exist outside the scope of physics and don't require time. Spiritual God has always existed, it didn't require being created or "made."


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Yes, we can observe the present.



No we can't and physics proves we can't. You're a goofball.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 1, 2015)

Where DID God come from? Pulled himself out of his hat? Scary thing is, science doesn't know what caused the big bang, either. You can't get something out of nothing. Matter is like 99.99 percent nothing. Perhaps the multiverse doesn't need a God because perhaps, it just always existed.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> The entire universe could simply disappear before another second passes because that's what happens to physical universes every 14.5 billion years and we didn't know that.


You could be "observing" a falling body, and poof!


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

MaryL said:


> I just read something on relativity, physicists believe time is another dimension like the X, Y, or Z axis in space. And time is like the groves on a record player, it exist in it's entity all at once. Time is an illusion, like the needle of a record player playing a grove, and humans are like the needles of that record player. That groove existed all the time, we just follow it. Not God, definitely not.



*Not God, definitely not.*

Not so fast... If our existence and universe is like a pre-recorded record, God is the greatest record producer in the history of history. What an amazing compilation! A masterpiece so beautiful it is beyond words.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Where DID God come from? Pulled himself out of his hat? Scary thing is, science doesn't know what caused the big bang, either. You can't get something out of nothing. Matter is like 99.99 percent nothing. Perhaps the multiverse doesn't need a God because perhaps, it just always existed.



God didn't "come from" anywhere because God is everywhere. 

LOL..  Science currently doesn't even know if there WAS a big bang... that's all being revisited at this time due to new discoveries like the universe being 96% dark matter and dark energy, of which we know little about. The singularity was always problematic because it seemingly has to defy physics... this bugged the shit out of Stephen Hawking. He has spent the last 40 years disproving his own theory on singularity and the big bang. 

Again... we're getting way off topic from the OP.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The entire universe could simply disappear before another second passes because that's what happens to physical universes every 14.5 billion years and we didn't know that.
> ...



You could indeed. Our perception of it won't be until AFTER it happens.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's remarkable how bossy will completely confound and contradict his own fumbling attempts at argument. Give him enough time and he will eventually do a 180. 

Earlier, bossy rattled on with his usual pontificating when he babbled:
_"Science cannot evaluate that which cannot be observed."_

He was repeatedly corrected and reminded that both gravity and electromagnetism are examples of things that can be evaluated but not observed. We now see bossy pontificating as he struggles to backstroke on his earlier pontificating as he now pontificates with pontification that refutes his earlier pontification:

_"Gravity doesn't come from the Magic Spaghetti Monster of Gravity in the sky, it is a physical force that we can observe, test and measure."_

Praise jeebus, bossy. Gravity actually does come from the gawds.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Except for our perception of the present time.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > I just read something on relativity, physicists believe time is another dimension like the X, Y, or Z axis in space. And time is like the groves on a record player, it exist in it's entity all at once. Time is an illusion, like the needle of a record player playing a grove, and humans are like the needles of that record player. That groove existed all the time, we just follow it. Not God, definitely not.
> ...


That is Einstein talking about time, just paraphrasing a little. Time is an illusion caused by our senses. It is another dimension. That is all. I don't understand it well, either, times arrow is an trick of our senses, I will leave it there.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Where DID God come from? Pulled himself out of his hat? Scary thing is, science doesn't know what caused the big bang, either. You can't get something out of nothing. Matter is like 99.99 percent nothing. Perhaps the multiverse doesn't need a God because perhaps, it just always existed.
> ...


Which of the gawds are everywhere? 

Can you support your comment about the gawds with anything more than your usual, pointless, ".... because I say so", commandment?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


But that doesn't change the fact that you observed it falling up to the point it went poof!


----------



## Toro (Jun 1, 2015)

Right now, God is 10:16pm ET.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



Well you are at the point of the OP. Time in the present is non-observable because we have to wait for physics to happen in order to perceive it. This means time must pass and that means our perception is forever in the past. All we are capable of observing is time which has passed, we cannot observe the moment of the present. 

Hollie can because Hollie is her own Gawd. But physical humans can't, we rely on our faith in a perception we receive after the fact. As Einstein correctly states... an illusion.


----------



## Boss (Jun 1, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You didn't observe it in the present because you can't observe the present.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 1, 2015)

,





Boss said:


> I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.
> 
> The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.
> 
> I am often asked what is my "proof" that God exists. My proof is Time. Time is God and God is Time. Before you jump to the conclusion this is not possible because Time is a physical dimension we can measure with science, consider the following: Our perception of Time is false. We assume Time exists, we can't perceive the present. We can divide Time into past, present and future. We have no perception of the future or if the future will happen at all. We only have evidence of the past, which includes our perceptions of the present. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?


Science is the deceiver? The one thing that put a man on the moon  or lead to the internet and found cures for polio or leprosy...What? To get back on topic, what has RELIGION done for us lately? Isis and Beheadings, And the Vatican bank or pedophile scandal. I am reaching for something GOOD to say about religion...


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You are still wrong. Everything you observe happened in the present, so you can observe the present. Saying you can't observe the present IN the present is not the same as saying you can't observe the present, as you do. You need a lesson in basic English.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 1, 2015)

Time is NOT god. Birth. Change, rust, decay.. Aging. Death. Predetermination... ?  It's  our curse as mortals. Time may be just an illusion, I don't know, mortality isn't as bad as it sounds. But Heaven (or hell), and after life, not even Einstein  knew.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Your perception IS observation. 

You lose.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



How  do you know? You say everything you observe happened in the present but if you can't observe the present you cannot confirm this. 

Answer: FAITH.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


When we observe the present, we witness the present. No gawds required.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Time is NOT god. Birth. Change, rust, decay.. Aging. Death. Predetermination... ?  It's  our curse as mortals. Time may be just an illusion, I don't know, mortality isn't as bad as it sounds. But Heaven (or hell), and after life, not even Einstein  knew.


Time=gawds is Bossy's method of proselytizing for his fundamentalist religious beliefs.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Your perception IS observation.
> 
> You lose.



So now we roll back to this one again? I don't have time for this, GT. We've already discussed the difference between perception and observation, back on page 6 or 7. Perception IS NOT observation when it comes to science and scientific evaluation. Now it may be the same on SpongeBob Squrepants or in a Kate Bush song, I wouldn't know. But I can give you endless examples of how perception is certainly NOT scientific observation, which is what we're discussing here.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, we can observe the present.
> ...


Of course we can observe the present. That conflicts with your intended purpose of this thread - to proselytize for your gawds, but religion is not science and you need to learn to separate your fundamentalist religious beliefs from the discipline of science.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Science is the deceiver? The one thing that put a man on the moon  or lead to the internet and found cures for polio or leprosy...What? To get back on topic, what has RELIGION done for us lately? Isis and Beheadings, And the Vatican bank or pedophile scandal. I am reaching for something GOOD to say about religion...



The topic here is NOT Religion. This is not a theological argument. The first paragraph of the OP makes this clear and I've gone out of my way to point this out to others throughout the thread when they started trying to interject their religious beliefs or tear into rants against religion. If you want to start a debate about the "Good, Bad and Ugly" of Religion, be my guest... sounds like a good topic and I will probably give my opinions. This is not that thread and I'm not going to let it be turned into that thread. 

The thread is in the Religion forum because that's where philosophy threads such as this are supposed to go. I can't help that USMB doesn't have a more suitable place. My OP is more about physics and human faith than anything religious.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



We don't observe the present, we can't observe it because of physics. All human observation depends on time happening and if time is happening, you are not in the moment of present time. 

Belief in God is a matter of personal faith. So is belief in our perceptions of the present.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Of course we can observe the present.



Of course we can't... not unless you are a god who can defy physics.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 2, 2015)

Even IF it were accepted that the present could not be directly perceived (though clearly this poster does not see it that way), there is still no act of faith involved. One has no alternative to trusting one's perceptions. It isn't even a thought. Believing in something implies contrast, choice. It isn't a logical use of the term to say, "I have faith that I exist". Merely posing the question proves the case.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Your perception IS observation.
> ...


You are a damn fool.

If you are observing the present but in the past, you are srill observing it.

If not, NOTHING is observible because its ALL the past, as youve conceded.

So in boss world, literally NOTHING is observable. 

You are one daft fuck up.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Of course we can observe the present.
> ...


Of course we can. You need to understand that your fundamentalist religious beliefs are separate from science.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Pur-rays jeebus.

Witness for me, bossy.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Even IF it were accepted that the present could not be directly perceived (though clearly this poster does not see it that way), there is still no act of faith involved. One has no alternative to trusting one's perceptions. It isn't even a thought. Believing in something implies contrast, choice. It isn't a logical use of the term to say, "I have faith that I exist". Merely posing the question proves the case.



Well the present IS perceived, that's not the issue. Perception is not observation and it's important to distinguish the difference. I gave examples of this earlier. Perception may lead us to believe heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects but observation reveals this is not the case and our perception is wrong. Perception might cause us to believe the universe revolves around the Earth... observation reveals our perception is wrong. 

We cannot *observe* the moment of present time due to physics. All we have to go on is our perception (which can be wrong) which is happening after the present has passed. There is no way to confirm our perception matches the actual moment of present. We rely on faith, we have no other option. 

I don't understand why you believe faith requires an option of choice. Most people who have faith in something don't believe there is a choice, if they do, they don't have much faith. Choice is what you have when you lack faith.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



*If you are observing the present but in the past, you are still observing it.*

You cannot observe the present in the past, that's an oxymoron. The present is a point in time, the past is a period of time. They are not the same. You have a perception of the present which you realize in the past. You can't realize it in the present because you must wait for physics to happen. You're a physical being constrained by properties of physics. 

*So in boss world, literally NOTHING is observable.*

Nothing is observable *in the moment of present time.* Everything we can observe is already in the past before we can perceive it... physics.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Already in the past =/= unobservable.

You cannot and have not made that case.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Again, for all you Einstein's in training out there... If you've found a way for Science or Physics to test and measure something that cannot be observed, you have unlocked the scientific formula for proving God. Let church bells ring, glory, glory, hallelujah!





Boss said:


> There are many things that are not visible, that we cannot see, but we can still *observe* them.


Yeah Bossy,you tell 'm, I stutter.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> The EFFECTS of gravity is what gravity IS, stupid! We observe it, we measure it, we do calculations with it all the time. It is not something that isn't observable.





Boss said:


> We don't observe the present, we can't observe it because of physics. All human observation depends on time happening and if time is happening, you are not in the moment of present time.


Like we observe the effects of gravity, we observe the effects of time moving from present to past. Like it takes no faith to observe the effects of gravity, it takes no faith to observe the effects of time.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Sorry you don't comprehend. Unobservable means it cannot be observed. If we have a perception happening in the past it is not in the present. The past is not the present. If it is "already in the past" then it can't be in the present. Our ONLY perception can happen in the past, due to physics having to happen first. We cannot observe the present because of physics. 

Unless you somehow unlock the secret of time travel and can travel into the future a bit, so as to give you time to have a perception BEFORE the present occurs... then you cannot observe the moment of present time. No one can because it's not physically possible. Physics MUST happen.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The EFFECTS of gravity is what gravity IS, stupid! We observe it, we measure it, we do calculations with it all the time. It is not something that isn't observable.
> ...



Wrong... We observe the effects of time moving from immediate past to a more distant past. We cannot observe the moment of present time. We do have faith that the moment of present time is as we are perceiving it to be, but we cannot verify this because we cannot observe the present moment of time. Faith is essential.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There's no requirement for faith. We observe a moment of present time absent your gawds. There is no reason to accept that your gawds are a requirement for perception of present time or for the existence of contingent reality.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


All you are doing is redefining the present as the immediate past, and making a fool of yourself in the process.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Yes, im not even going to continue the convo at this point, i find this guy utterly and unforgivably stupid.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 2, 2015)

.
physics explains the vision of a star as a dynamic consequence of distance, nothing more and has no relevance to cognition or time.

there is no such concept as faith involved in physics but for those as the religious who will combine both to sacrifice truth for their own gratuitous fantasy > bossy.

.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I didn't say anything about Gods. Faith is still essential if you believe present reality is as you perceive it.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No its not. 

If i measure the length of my phone with a ruler, i dont need faith that my phone was x-inches - it is a fact. I can observe the present despite being in the near future doing so.

Your argument is bananas levels of fucking stupid.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well Eddy, no I'm really not doing that. YOU want to redefine "the present" to include the immediate past  and I won't let you get away with it. You are making a fool out of yourself. The moment of present time cannot be observed due to physics. All we can have is perception which is created after time has passed. 

You have not overcome that stark fact of reality which is the basis of the thread OP.  Stomping your feet and throwing a fit will not change that. Calling me names and acting like I've not made the argument will not suffice.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, it wont make an argument - but it will point out a reality. You are drip cup levels of asslips stupid.

That is a fact.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You have made many references to a gawd. There is clearly no requirement for religious, or any other faith, to perceive present reality. 

You insist on a faith requirement as a means to proselytize for your gawds. Apples and Chimera's, fundie man.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well I find you utterly and unforgivably stupid as well, but I don't need to post it because that's not my argument. For page after page, it appears you four are in this for points whoring... thanking each others posts and keeping the balloon in the air when you really don't have a counter to the OP argument. I've been really patient and tried to walk you through this, but the thread continues to follow a pattern of... denial, distraction, denigration, denial, proclaim victory, denial, distraction, denigration, denial, proclaim victory. Over and over, page after stinking page... same shit, same 4 posters. 

*Yawn


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You're stuttering and mumbling, fundie man. 

I'm afraid the failure of your proselytising leaves you no option but to endlessly copy and paste your same silly slogans and cliches'.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Well when youre as annoyinly daft and gullible as you are, its hard to avoid ridiculing you for it because you also maintain an arrogance and play fake smart.

Youre philosophically on the level of an infant.

No, they have a clearer mind than you do. Ita worse than than. 


The present is proven. The observor cannot observe of the observor is deceased. 

If the observor is alive, time relative to the observor continues.

What the observor currently observes, is of no consequence to whether the present is occurring or not. 

If theyre alive, theres a proven present, no faith required.

If theyre observing the past - it proves theres a present because all of the past was once the present - and - you are alive 

No faith required 




If you are smart enough to tie your shoes, you are smart enough to know that theres no faith required in the present.

And there is 100% faith required for god 

The two are not apt comparisons.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



It's a fact that everything you did was in the past and not the present moment of time. Even before your enormous brain could think to measure your phone, the past is already here. The present has moved on. 

Now I can establish all  kinds of facts about the past. We have about 14.5 billion Earth revolutions around the Sun to examine there. What you and I don't have is facts about present time because we cannot observe it. 

So we can only have faith in our perception of the present.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The past was once the present.
Observing the past proves the present continues, unless you are dead. 

Facts. No opinions.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


There is no requirement for faith to perceive the present.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> If theyre observing the past - it proves theres a present because all of the past was once the present - and - you are alive



No it only proves they're observing the past if they are observing the past. You are ASSUMING (through faith) that the past was once the present. In order to confirm this, you would have to be able to observe the present and you can't defy physics to do that.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Since he looks like Beetlejuice from the Howard Stern show, if you read his posts in Beetle's retard voice it provides ample entertainment. Lol, check it out.

Its the voice i read it in when I read his derpy posts and its fucking hysterical.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> The past was once the present.


This is not provable. It IS our perception.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > If theyre observing the past - it proves theres a present because all of the past was once the present - and - you are alive
> ...


Umm, no physics actually PROVES MATHEMATICALLY that the past was once the present.

Holy fuck you are an imbecile


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The past was once the present.
> ...


No, that is actually the physics behind time you fucking imbecile.

The past was once the present.
The future is presents to come.

That is how time works, as DEFINED by physics. Wow.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > If theyre observing the past - it proves theres a present because all of the past was once the present - and - you are alive
> ...


The past would not exist if the present had not occurred. 

Check to see if the Falwell Academy has revised / updated version of _Physics for the Silly._


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> What the observor currently observes, is of no consequence to whether the present is occurring or not.



I never made that argument but how do you know that? The moment of present time is beyond your ability to observe. Physics is the proof. So you really don't know what is occurring in the present because you can't observe it. All you have to go on... all ANY of us have to go on, is a perception of the present which arrives to us in the past. We rely on faith in that perception, always.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > What the observor currently observes, is of no consequence to whether the present is occurring or not.
> ...


The past is the present, plus time.

It is its fucking definition. Wow


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > What the observor currently observes, is of no consequence to whether the present is occurring or not.
> ...


Faith is not a requirement to perceive the present.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



No, it's actually the physics which proves you cannot observe the present moment of time. Physics enables your perception which happens after the present has passed... gone forever... buh bye!


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Physics demands that the past was once the present.

I dont know what the fuck time books you have read but if you cant even understand that youre a bigger fucking lame than you already were percieved, Beetle.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Faith is not a requirement to perceive the present.



Faith is required to believe what is not observable. You  can't observe the moment of present time. You have a perception of it in the past.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Physics doesn't "demand" anything of the sort. Time is a dimension which is measurable by physics but the moment of present time is a point, it is not measurable or observable due to physics which has to happen first. 

Name calling is not debate. Sorry Skippy, when you do this it shows you are losing and losing badly. The more you call me names the more I know that I've nailed my points and you can't refute them. So.... carry on!


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Noone is losing badly but you, Beetlejuice.

You are actually admitting ignorance of the fundamental basics of what time even is.

Stay in your lane next time and make a thread regarding the sociological effects of crack rock when smoked by the already retarded midget who is in the whack pack.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

Another heapin' heppin' of ad hom denigration!  .....Ah, lovely!


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

I do what I can, Beetlejuice.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> You are actually admitting ignorance of the fundamental basics of what time even is.



Funny.... I thought the same thing about your argument. You seem to think "the present" includes the past. Or does the past include the present? In any event, you don't seem to be getting it through your thick head that the moment of present time is non-observable because physics has to happen before we can perceive something.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > You are actually admitting ignorance of the fundamental basics of what time even is.
> ...


Well, youre the one who didnt know that the past was once the present.

Let the viewers at home decide who the dipstick is, playboy.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Faith is not a requirement to perceive the present.
> ...


False. Your silliness has been corrected previously. You apparently feel that spamming the thread with your same cut and paste nonsense, your silliness will, by magic, come true.

The force of gravity, electromagnetism are forces we cannot directly observe, yet, there is no requirement for faith to perceive the existence of those forces.

It's remarkable that you are wholly unable to learn from experience.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Sorry Sucker, "The present" is the present and not "the immediate past." I won't let you get away with redefining words to suite your doublespeak.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Well, youre the one who didnt know that the past was once the present.



Well I still don't know that it is, you haven't proven it and you can't due to physics. All you can prove is the past is the former perception of the present you had. Since you cannot observe the moment of present time, you cannot prove the present is as you perceived it.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> It's a fact that everything you did was in the past and not the present moment of time.


It is also a fact that everything you are DOING is in the present, no observation required, just the doing!


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well if the present is the present then it's not the immediate past. So when do you have observation of the present?


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well if the present is the present then it's not the immediate past. So when do you have observation of the present?


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Well if the present is the present then it's not the immediate past. So when do you have observation of the present?


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You don't need to observe the present for it to be the present. You could say we live in the present blindly!


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You also don't have to observe God for God to be God.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Science can evaluate gravity in spite of the force of gravity not being observed.
> ...


she fell flat on her face with that one.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 2, 2015)

MaryL said:


> There within lay the eternal question  a three year old might ask in Sunday school: WHAT made GOD? Well, wise guy?


an appropriate question for a three year old to ask....an adult, not so much......nothing made God, an eternal deity does not need a maker as he does not have a beginning.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> [
> Yes, we can observe the present.


looking back, you may well be wrong.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 2, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Where DID God come from? Pulled himself out of his hat? Scary thing is, science doesn't know what caused the big bang, either. You can't get something out of nothing. Matter is like 99.99 percent nothing. Perhaps the multiverse doesn't need a God because perhaps, it just always existed.


science tells us THIS universe did not always exist.....science cannot tell us that a deity did not always exist......someTHING cannot come from noTHING.....but if the deity is not a THING, that rule has no application......


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You're pointlessness derives from you not paying attention.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Already in the past =/= unobservable.
> 
> You cannot and have not made that case.


as I understand it, the case he has made is not that it is unobservable, but that if it is already in the past it isn't observed in the present....


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Looking back, you're as pointless as always.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


how long does your "present" last....a second?.....an hour?....two weeks?.......Boss is simply arguing that the "present" exists only for an instant......


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You also can invent all the gawds and spirit realms you wish. There's just no reason to accept them as true.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you've said that in the past........


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > There within lay the eternal question  a three year old might ask in Sunday school: WHAT made GOD? Well, wise guy?
> ...


".... because that's the myth I was given as a child and never questioned the dogma"


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Faith is not a requirement to perceive the present.
> ...


There is no requirement for faith. We observe the present without a need for your gawds.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 2, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...


true....as a child I learned that "eternal" by definition includes "not having a beginning"......however, it wasn't in dogma class.....it was in English class.....


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Actually, due to physics you do.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


That's the problem. They taught you religious indoctrination instead of English at the Falwell Madrassah.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Not quite. According to Bossy's Law, nothing is observable in the present so any observation of gravity is in the past and therefore only a perception of gravity but you can't know if your perception of gravity is real.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> how long does your "present" last....a second?.....an hour?....two weeks?.......Boss is simply arguing that the "present" exists only for an instant......



Not even an "instant" really. Instant implies instance, and the present moment of time is a point-- not an instance. 

It is from that point in time that physics must happen for us to have perception of any kind of present reality. Because of physics  we are bound as non-observant characters to a present time we cannot observe. You would have to defy physics in order to do so and you can't as a physical being. Or at least, you can't at this time... science could one day find a way to time travel, etc. 

The point is, we rely on our faith in the perception we have of present reality the same faith we rely on to believe in God. There is no difference.


----------



## Boss (Jun 2, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> According to Bossy's Law, nothing is observable in the present...



No... let's be clear... It's according to *physics.* Time has to pass and physics has to occur for you to observe any damn thing. You are bound by physics as a physical being in a physical universe and all your perceptions are reliant upon physics happening, which takes TIME to happen.  It's not possible for you to observe the present moment of time, you only have a perception received in the past after time passes.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

"There is no difference"



Kay im done.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > how long does your "present" last....a second?.....an hour?....two weeks?.......Boss is simply arguing that the "present" exists only for an instant......
> ...


You're still suffering from profound confusion regarding our ability to perceive the present and your need to find a gap to spackle your gawds into.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

Lolol ugly assed two tone hair having ass clown


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Lolol ugly assed two tone hair having ass clown


but what does that mean in English?.......


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Lolol ugly assed two tone hair having ass clown
> ...


Google it.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 2, 2015)

G.T. said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


okay, I did......your post was the only match....


----------



## G.T. (Jun 2, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It means an ugly man with two different colors for his hair who happens to be unintentionally funny.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 3, 2015)

and all that because you're having difficulty understanding a philosophical discussion about science?


----------



## G.T. (Jun 3, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> and all that because you're having difficulty understanding a philosophical discussion about science?


I have no trouble understanding it at all.

That is just the johnnies on the ice cream.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

G.T. said:


> I have no trouble understanding it at all.



Obviously, you do.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I have no trouble understanding it at all.
> ...


Coming frm you one must always assume the opposite


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



The last 4-5 posts from you are nothing but trolling harassment in violation of forum rules. You're supposed to be including content relevant to the OP and you're not doing that at all. You've abandoned civil discourse to be a troll. 

Now I don't mind a little spirited banter back and forth, I have thick skin and it doesn't really bother me personally, but the forum has rules we have to follow and sooner or later the mods are going to warn you about this. I've not reported your posts yet but eventually someone will. 

I suggest you get back on track and debate the OP argument or leave this thread and go find the flame board where you are free to denigrate me any way you please.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 3, 2015)

The op argument is resolved, it was nonsensical.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

G.T. said:


> The op argument is resolved, it was nonsensical.



LOL... Yes, because your excellent trolling and insulting skills and over-sized brain allows you to dismiss physics as nonsensical! 

The moment of present time cannot be observed. Your perceptions are bound by physics which requires time to happen. You've not refuted this argument and you can't. So you and several others have decided to use the Saul Alinsky tactic of repeating your lie over and over until it becomes truth. This has gone on for over a week and you still persist. None of you have presented a suitable counter argument and you can't, that's why you keep trolling.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 3, 2015)

.
there is no other time than the present that is observed, it is the OP who troll's in fallacies.

.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> there is no other time than the present that is observed, it is the OP who troll's in fallacies.
> 
> .



Observe... *The Past!*


----------



## PixieStix (Jun 3, 2015)

God is eternity. Eternity has no time


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

*"there is no other time than the present that is observed"*

The point of present time can never be observed, physics must happen first and physics requires time passing. You do not observe the present, you perceive the present after the present has passed and is gone forever. All your observations are in the past before you can perceive them.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The op argument is resolved, it was nonsensical.
> ...


The moment of the present certainly can be observed. 

You take issue with that specifically because you need a gap to spackle your gawds into.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 3, 2015)

PixieStix said:


> God is eternity. Eternity has no time


 Most gawds, yes. Your gawds, not so much.


----------



## PixieStix (Jun 3, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > God is eternity. Eternity has no time
> ...


Oh good gawd


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

Hollie said:


> The moment of the present certainly can be observed.



It certainly can't unless you've found a way to defy physics.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


It was the present when that photo was taken.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> *"there is no other time than the present that is observed"*
> 
> The point of present time can never be observed, physics must happen first and physics requires time passing. You do not observe the present, *you perceive the present *after the present has passed and is gone forever. All your observations are in the past before you can perceive them.


Again , you admit we observe the present after a delay, but it was undeniably the present we were observing. Just because an ensuing series of presents have past while your brain is processing the present you observed does not mean that you need faith to observe the present you are observing.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Well, no it wasn't because physics had to happen and that took time. The photo was taken in the past not the present. All our ability to observe is in the past, forever and always, unless we find a way to defy physics.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *"there is no other time than the present that is observed"*
> ...



No, I admitted no such thing because it's not true. You have a perception occurring in the past due to physics and you assume this perception depicts the present as it was when it happened. You can't prove it because you can't observe the present. You can falsely make the claim, you can repeat that for hundreds of posts and through dozens of pages, and you can even get other morons to thank your posts and agree with your false assumptions. But physics doesn't lie and can't be overcome.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> ...but it was undeniably the present we were observing.



This is your faith-based assumption but you cannot prove it with science. You did not "observe" the present, you had a perception of it after the present passed. It is not physically possible for you to observe the actual present. Physics HAS TO HAPPEN and that takes TIME.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> ...physics must happen first and physics requires time passing


.
yours is a red herring, no physics is involved nor does physics require a passing of time ... 







you misinterpret the Apex as being a matter of faith - 

.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The moment of the present certainly can be observed.
> ...


There's no need to defy physics. I simply need to point out that your argument is structured around your need to promote your religious dogma as opposed to recognizing a reality based worldview.

Sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> nor does physics require a passing of time



Well... *YES IT DOES!*  You simply can't show me anything with physics that doesn't require time passing.


----------



## Boss (Jun 3, 2015)

Hollie said:


> There's no need to defy physics.



To believe YOUR bullshit, we have to suspend physics.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 3, 2015)

G.T. said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > and all that because you're having difficulty understanding a philosophical discussion about science?
> ...


googled that one too......like before, only you came up......


----------



## G.T. (Jun 3, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Johnnies are sprinkles bro. Rainbow ones. 

Get out more.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 3, 2015)

G.T. said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


apparently Google needs to get out more as well......


----------



## G.T. (Jun 3, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


True. It is confined by wires and sattelites.


----------



## Imnukingfutz (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Again, the moment of present is not a "minuscule time period" as you've incorrectly stated, it is a specific point of time.



Present is minuscule = nanosecond
Present is specific point of time = nanosecond


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> You have a perception occurring in the past due to physics and* you assume this perception depicts the present as it was when it happened. You can't prove it because you can't observe the present*.


Actually it is proven every time a batter hits a home run!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > There's no need to defy physics.
> ...


Actually, no. Nothing of what has been presented to you requires magical gawds or supernatural spirit realms which is precisely what you're trying to sell with your proselytizing.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > nor does physics require a passing of time
> ...



*.*
that was provided for you already,  your temper tantrum induced amnesia convieniently has altering your recollection, try a few aspirin and give it some thought ....

* if there is nothing then where is your faith

.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2015)

Imnukingfutz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again, the moment of present is not a "minuscule time period" as you've incorrectly stated, it is a specific point of time.
> ...



Again, because apparently you are thick, the "present" is a POINT of time, not a PERIOD. A nanosecond is a PERIOD of time. You are trying to make "the present time" mean something it doesn't mean, you are trying to make it an arbitrary period of time so that it can include the immediate past and you can claim we observe it. But it's a point in time, NOT a second, nanosecond, microsecond, billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second... it is a *POINT* in time and not a *PERIOD* of time. 

You see... a "nanosecond" or any other PERIOD of time, has a beginning and ending POINT. It starts at (A) and ends at (B)... while the POINTS are (A) and (B).  The present is a POINT and not a PERIOD, it doesn't last a nanosecond or any other PERIOD of time.  Now, short of breaking out the coloring book, I don't know of a simpler way to explain this. You either get this or you don't.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You have a perception occurring in the past due to physics and* you assume this perception depicts the present as it was when it happened. You can't prove it because you can't observe the present*.
> ...



Does the batter defy physics and travel into the future so he can observe the moment of present time? If not, then it's not proven when a batter hits a home run.


----------



## Boss (Jun 4, 2015)

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



No Breezy, nothing has been presented to show physics doesn't require time. There are no physical principles or properties, no laws or fundamentals of physics, nothing can be physically tested, measured or observed without time passing. Stomp your little feet and throw a hissy fit, physics is still going to require time and you still haven't proven otherwise.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Clearly the batter's PERCEPTION accurately depicted the present he observed in spite of the microsecond delay or he would not have hit the ball.
Argument over!


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 4, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


mmmm....argument fails......if any batter waited until he perceived the ball being in position to be hit he would strike out.....he must calculate (swiftly) where he believes the ball WILL BE in the immediate future and begin his swing prior to that moment so that his bat intersects the ball......likely he will be half way to first base before he finds out if he hit a home run or not......


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 4, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Based on his observation of the movement of the ball in the present as he observed it. He does not base it on the previous pitch or the next, but on the ball that presently left the hand of the pitcher. He must judge instantly the speed, trajectory, and spin of the ball to know where to swing, a curve ball spin will cause the ball to sink and a fastball spin will cause the ball to rise. You can see the batter's head follow the ball right up to its contact with the bat.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 4, 2015)

does his action of swinging the bat occur AFTER he sees the ball?........


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


. 
one's delusion for the sake of an argument remains a self only delusion ... 

the physics of the stars image has no relation or an element of time to the physiology you claim has a bearing for its observation nor is there a factor of faith involved for either.

.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 4, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> does his action of swinging the bat occur AFTER he sees the ball?........


Absolutely! All good hitters follow the ball from the pitchers hand right up to the moment it hits the bat as the photos showed.
In this video you can clearly see the batter's eyes are looking down on the ball as it hits the bat, not up where the ball left the pitcher's hand.


----------



## Boss (Jun 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



The batter's perception is not the issue. Everything the batter perceives is already in the past. The ball traveling toward him is already in the past. Light had to reflect off the ball and travel to his eyes and be perceived, the present is gone. When his bat contacts the ball, both bat and ball are already in the past. Objects meet, a force is felt, nerves are stimulated, sense of touch provides a sensation of hitting a ball and the signal travels to the brain to become a perception of hitting the ball... all of it is in the past, it cannot be in the moment of present time. Physics does not allow it. 

We can go through all the physical examples you wish, it's always going to be the same. You cannot observe the present, physics has to happen, time has to happen.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You can spew all the doublespeak you want, but you claimed you can't PROVE your PERCEPTION of what is happening depicts the present, but the contact with the ball proves the accuracy in observing the present.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And nothing in your proselytizing comes close to supporting your "_gawds=time_", meme. 

Yet another failed thread attempting to promote your gawds.


----------



## Boss (Jun 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No, it proves accuracy in observing the past... the present cannot be observed.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You struck out!


----------



## Boss (Jun 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Nope... another lead-off double and RBI. 

You can't prove anything about the present because you can't observe it. In your example, you have the perception that a ball exists in a certain time and place and you anticipate the arrival due to physics in order to perceive making contact with a bat. This is your perception of reality in present time, but what you can never do is observe the actual present to confirm your perception. 

You cannot use circular reasoning here because Science doesn't operate on circular reasoning. The past doesn't prove the present, only our perception of it.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Nope... another lead-off double and RBI.


Due to physics, there can be no one on base when the "lead-off" hitter comes to the plate, so it is as impossible for a lead-off double to drive in a run as it is for you to tell the truth.
You just fouled out.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> You can't prove anything about the present because you can't observe it. In your example, you have the perception that a ball exists in a certain time and place and you anticipate the arrival due to physics in order to perceive making contact with a bat. This is your perception of reality in present time, but what you can never do is observe the actual present to *confirm your perception*.


Wrong as usual. The ball striking the bat is the confirmation.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 5, 2015)

.
without the foundation of the present time for sustenance, there are places reserved for such individuals as bossy, the State Mental Institute (Chattahoochee Hospital in Florida) ... free of charge when committed by a physician.

.


----------



## Boss (Jun 5, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You can't prove anything about the present because you can't observe it. In your example, you have the perception that a ball exists in a certain time and place and you anticipate the arrival due to physics in order to perceive making contact with a bat. This is your perception of reality in present time, but what you can never do is observe the actual present to *confirm your perception*.
> ...



No it's not because you can't observe it in the present. No one is questioning you have a perception of a bat hitting a ball. All of it is happening in the past not the present. In order to confirm your perception matches you need to observe the present but you can't observe it... physics has to happen and physics takes time.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


That is pure hog wash. You know you hit the ball, and you know you are not playing football.


----------



## Boss (Jun 6, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



What IS the argument you think we're having? That we have perceptions? That we know things? That we can observe physical phenomenon? None of this is the argument but it keeps seeming like that is what you think. I've never said we can't perceive the present or the present doesn't exist, isn't real, can't be believed in... none of this is MY argument. 

Our perceptions are not the issue here. We can perceive all kinds of things. We can have the perception that God exists. We can even perceive that WE are God, or more important than God. If Science has ever proved anything it should be that we ought not trust our perceptions. Just because it appears the universe revolves around Earth, doesn't mean it's true. 

The OP argues that we cannot observe the point of present time. It's like God, it is non-observable and depends completely on our faith. The fact remains, you have not overcome the OP argument based on physics and you can't because it's a true argument. For you to observe anything, time and physics MUST happen.... you are a being bound by a physical universe and the laws which govern it. Unless you find a way to defy physics the OP argument will be true. So far, none of you have presented something to defy physics but I am still patiently waiting. I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but you never know!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Aside from your usual pontificating, we clearly can observe present time.

Nothing in your pontificating has refuted that. I don't expect you to present a coherent argument that is not drenched in appeals to your fundamentalist religious beliefs, but ya' never know. 

Gawd=time? You have made no case for that slogan.


----------



## Boss (Jun 6, 2015)

Hollie said:


> Aside from your usual pontificating, we clearly can observe present time.



But we certainly can't and to argue that we can is ignorant of physics. All we can observe is a perception made possible through physics and time. Until physics and time happen, there is no perception. The problem is, if time happens it is no longer "present" time, it is time which has happened or passed. It's physically impossible to observe the moment of present time.... just like God.


----------



## amrchaos (Jun 6, 2015)

By the way Boss

I think your "God = Time" is a bit restrictive to some of your non-theistic notions of God.


----------



## Boss (Jun 6, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> By the way Boss
> 
> I think your "God = Time" is a bit restrictive to some of your non-theistic notions of God.



"God = Time" is not a quote by me. The title of the thread is: *God... Is Time.* 

"Is" doesn't mean "equal." It can, in certain applications, but it is it's own word. 

Also, as well... the words "God" and "Time" can be ambiguous. As my thread title, it is intentionally allegorical by literary design. In the opening paragraph of the OP, which I assume most have read at this point, the terminology is explained. The thread isn't really about "God" or "Time" in general, but more specifically, human faith and the physical point of present time. 

The parallel is drawn. We have perception of a reality happening but we can never observe it directly because we must wait for physics to happen. We also have a perception of something greater than self which some define as "God." We can't observe it directly and we wait for spiritual blessing to happen. 

The argument here is not theological or even philosophical, it is physics. Plain and simple. We are trapped in a physical universe reliant upon physics and time to give us a perception we have faith in as reality.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > By the way Boss
> ...


It's more than a little disingenuous to suggest that gawds=time is not a theological argument. Throughout this thread, you have frequently made appeals to the gawds as a part of your misrepresentation of both theology and physics.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> "Is" doesn't mean "equal."


It sure does in physics.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > "Is" doesn't mean "equal."
> ...



1+1 IS an even number. That statement is true but "is" doesn't mean "equal" because there are a LOT of even numbers that 1+1 are not. 

No, shithead... "IS" can mean other things even in physics. (forgetting the fact that the title of my thread is NOT presented as a physics formula.) 

As I correctly stated before and you ignored: "Is" _can_ imply something is equal. However, seeing how I have now posted about a dozen replies to you, Hollie, GT (and others) on numerous occasions throughout the thread, explaining that is NOT the intention here, and I am the one who wrote it.. I think we kinda have to go with, 'that wasn't the definition intended' and move on. Don't you agree? I mean... do you actually think you know better about what I intended to mean than I do?


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2015)

Hollie said:


> It's more than a little disingenuous to suggest that gawds=time is not a theological argument. Throughout this thread, you have frequently made appeals to the gawds as a part of your misrepresentation of both theology and physics.



You're reading a different thread than me is all I can say. The fact that you cannot observe the point of present time is not a theological argument or an opinion. It is a matter of physics. It doesn't "appeal" to anything but physics. 

You are the nutbag who wants to argue "instantaneous perception" as if we're not physical beings bound by laws of physics. Really, if you are that stupid you should refrain from ever commenting on anything to do with physics.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > "Is" doesn't mean "equal."
> ...


uh, no......1 is a number, but a number does not equal 1


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nope, "is" ALWAYS means the equal sign.

Translating Word Problems Keywords

The hardest thing about doing word problems is taking the English words and translating them into mathematics. Usually, once you get the math equation, you're fine; the actual math involved is often fairly simple. But figuring out the actual equation can seem nearly impossible. What follows is a list of hints and helps.

*Equals* 

is, are, was, were, will be
gives, yields
sold for


----------



## PostmodernProph (Jun 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


then if 1 is/equals "a number" and 2 is/equals "a number", then 1 is/equals 2...........


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2015)

PostmodernProph said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Obviously, you flunked your arithmetic lessons at the Falwell Madrassah.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



This should be nominated for the stupidest argument ever attempted in USMB history.  The fucking word "IS" can mean a lot of things in context. It is one of the oldest words. It is the 3rd person singular present indicative of "be" and "be" means "present." 

Because something is present doesn't mean something else can't also be present. 

What you are foolishly and ignorantly doing is trying to point to "equal" and say it means the same thing as "is" and that has not been argued by me or anyone. Equal DOES mean IS, but IS doesn't mean EQUAL.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2015)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



You and Eddy are running neck-and-neck as the stupidest posters on USMB with the past couple of arguments you've tried to present.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2015)

What we're seeing here is a pattern developing. It has gone on for days now and it will go on for many more days. Several people cannot argue on the merits of the subject so they have decided to destroy the thread by flooding it with minutiae like the meaning of "IS" for example. In doing this, they distract everyone from the topic and parade around like little rodeo clowns hooping and hollering for attention. 

I am going to make the choice to ignore trolls from here on out. I've presented my arguments and they have not been refuted. I don't have time or patience to sit here and play silly semantics games with morons. If that's your cup of tea, be my guest, have at it!  I'm signing off until someone posts something of relevance to the topic.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



It's a shame that your arguments simply resolve to proselytizing for your gawds. For all your failed attempts to defend _gawds=time_, you're left to kick and stomp your feet like a child who has been scolded.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> What we're seeing here is a pattern developing. It has gone on for days now and it will go on for many more days. Several people cannot argue on the merits of the subject so they have decided to destroy the thread by flooding it with minutiae like the meaning of "IS" for example. In doing this, they distract everyone from the topic and parade around like little rodeo clowns hooping and hollering for attention.
> 
> I am going to make the choice to ignore trolls from here on out. I've presented my arguments and they have not been refuted. I don't have time or patience to sit here and play silly semantics games with morons. If that's your cup of tea, be my guest, have at it!  I'm signing off until someone posts something of relevance to the topic.



As thin and as weak as your attempt at argument has been, there's not much to refute. _Gawds=time_ is not an argument that can be taken seriously. You're just as dishonest as a summer day is long with your carelessly and pointlessly slathering on about your gawds while stumbling over your own coments from post to post.

The easiest way to refute your arguments is to let you pontificate from post to post wherein you refute your earlier comments and then pontificate for several paragraphs wherein you laughably mismanage terms and conditions in hopelessly inept attempts to grab the boat anchor of your failed stuttering and mumbling.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2015)

Shut up and leave, troll.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Shut up and leave, troll.


Grow up child.


----------



## Boss (Jun 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Eddy boy, I don't often quote my own posts but I felt sorry for you here. This seems to be where your train departed the tracks most recently in an attempt to derail the thread.  Now.... you and Hollie can scratch like cats in a litter box to try and cover this post up in a mountain of your pointless blather, but the argument remains and you've not addressed it.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


You struck out with that pontification long ago. Repeating it does not make it any less meaningless.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Shut up and leave, troll.


Compelling argument there, bossy. It's as pointless and vacant as gawds=time.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jun 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> This seems to be where (the) train departed the tracks ...


*God... Is Time. *

no, as remote and unsupported as the above title remains, the train left the track when bossy lost touch with reality ... and remains so.

and might consider why for its own sake then just take it like a man.

.


----------



## Boss (Jun 9, 2015)

edthecynic said:


> You struck out with that pontification long ago. Repeating it does not make it any less meaningless.



The problem here is, you are apparently too much of a simple-headed moron to explain how my argument struck out or how it was pontificating and not physics. Because we don't see where you've made that case or anyone else for that matter. 

This is the old familiar Alinsky tactic... continually infer the argument was defeated... way back, many pages ago... no point in searching through the thousands of meaningless posts, these morons defeated my argument and we should just all accept that as the truth. They keep claiming it, so it MUST be true, right? 

Physics is not debatable, it is not an opinion. Physics takes time to happen. Nothing in the principles of physics, no physical law or formula can ever function without time. It is essential for physics to work. We cannot observe things or have perception of them without time. As long as this remains true, we cannot observe the point of present time. We have to wait for physics and time to happen, meaning we cannot be in the present anymore. We have a perception and we have a faith in our perception. That's ALL we have, all we'll ever have, unless we find a way to defy physics. 

Now, it makes no difference how many Alinskyites want to flood the thread and play their radical games, this point stands unchallenged and irrefutable. Being a troll won't change it, pretending the argument failed won't change it, calling me names and insulting my mother won't change it. So put on your grown-up pants and deal with it.


----------



## Abishai100 (Jun 9, 2015)

*Extrapolating Elysium*

What is really the difference between experience and memory?

When something 'happens,' we cite it as perception/experience, but when we want to make analogies or metaphors of past perceptions/experiences, we retrieve memories and reference our 'personalized' models of what actually happened.

When we think that perception is a priority, time is measured in terms of progress (i.e., *Black Friday*), but when we think of memory as a priority, time is measured in terms of patterns  (i.e.,* Friday the 13th*).

Why do witches/warlocks ascribe avatars of mysticism (i.e., *Father Time*) to conceptualizations of time measurement, immortality, and/or eternity?  Is there a connection between nature/voodoo and sensitivity?

The American comic book avatar *Scarlet Witch (Marvel Comics)* is a super-female with extraordinary powers and represents modern-era fascination with gender/species empowerment and perception enhancement (also magic).

If there is an all-knowing and omnipotent Creator (God), and He/She has control or wisdom in matters of time/eternity, why do we make dialogue-rich characters and even alternative religion icons (i.e., Scarlet Witch, Father Time, etc.) to willfully debate about *'power jargon'*?





Father Time


----------

