God... Is Time.

[Hollie]

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.

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]

'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).

Amun Ra is the literal translation for "I Am", "gods", God <----capital G for dramatic affect, god=time™, etc., etc.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the same for a freed Spirit, I am is the goal, all would be God's.

.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.......

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.......

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.

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............

......except for the part you edited out.

you can follow the chain of quotes back if you wish.....everything you posted is there.....

 

[BreezeWood]

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.......

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.......

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.

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............

......except for the part you edited out.

you can follow the chain of quotes back if you wish.....everything you posted is there.....

.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

Faith in "the present" is no different than faith in God.

 

[Hollie]

Faith in "the present" is no different than faith in God.

"Pointless babble".

 

[Hollie]

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.

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.

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'.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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'.

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?

he's hoping to make it something you can understand.......

 

[Hollie]

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.

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.

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'.

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?

he's hoping to make it something you can understand.......

There's no point being made. It's much like when you rattle on with your YEC'ist fantasies.

 

[RandomVariable]

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.

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.

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'.

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?

he's hoping to make it something you can understand.......

There's no point being made. It's much like when you rattle on with your YEC'ist fantasies.

You keep using the acronym 'YEC'. What is a YEC?

 

[Hollie]

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.