God... Is Time.

[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?

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'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.

Hollie's Theory of Instantaneous Perceptios 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

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?

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'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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

You have failed to make a cohesive argument. Gawds=time™ is merely a religious claim you have made, absent any coherent argument.

 

[Hollie]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

You have made no rational case for an inability to observe present time.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

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.

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.

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.

You have made no rational case for an inability to observe present time.

you have to wait until he sees your post......(she won't get that, will she.....)

 

[Imnukingfutz]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

Due to physics, the present does not require observation.

Neither does God.... both rely on faith.

 

[edthecynic]

The delay is what is the issue.

The delay is meaningless, so you have no issue!

 

[G.T.]

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]

The delay is what is the issue.

The delay is meaningless, so you have no 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]

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.

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.]

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]

[ 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]

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.