God... Is Time.

[edthecynic]

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]

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,.

.

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]

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!

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]

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!

Well the argument stands until it is refuted. You've not refuted the argument.

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]

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]

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!

Well the argument stands until it is refuted. You've not refuted the argument.

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.

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.]

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]

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.

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.]

that we dont is a matter of opinion

 

[Boss]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

Well the argument stands until it is refuted. You've not refuted the argument.

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.

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!

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]

passage of time.

From what to what?

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.

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]

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]

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.]

Boss is derp c

 

[Boss]

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.

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.