God... Is Time.

[Boss]

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.

.

???? 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]

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.

.

???? 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!

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]

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.

.

???? 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!

.
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]

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]

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]

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]

You made various statements, none of which you have been able to support.

Such as???

 

[Hollie]

You made various statements, none of which you have been able to support.

Such as???

Gawds=time.

 

[Boss]

You made various statements, none of which you have been able to support.

Such as???

Gawds=time.

Not my words, sorry.

 

[edthecynic]

You made various statements, none of which you have been able to support.

Such as???

Gawds=time.

Not my words, sorry.

It's YOUR title, liar!

 

[Boss]

You made various statements, none of which you have been able to support.

Such as???

Gawds=time.

Not my words, sorry.

It's YOUR title, liar!

No... No, it's not. ...Try again!

 

[Hollie]

You made various statements, none of which you have been able to support.

Such as???

Gawds=time.

Not my words, sorry.

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]

You made various statements, none of which you have been able to support.

Such as???

Gawds=time.

Not my words, sorry.

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.

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]

You made various statements, none of which you have been able to support.

Such as???

Gawds=time.

Not my words, sorry.

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.

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.

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]

God is Light, not time.

 

[edthecynic]

You made various statements, none of which you have been able to support.

Such as???

Gawds=time.

Not my words, sorry.

It's YOUR title, liar!

No... No, it's not. ...Try again!

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]

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]

"Is" in English is the equal sign in Physics.

...says Sir Issac Dingbat.

 

[Boss]

God is Light, not time.

What is light without time?

 

[Boss]

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.