God... Is Time.

[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

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.

Faith is not faith.

There are levels to faith necessary versus probabilities. Quit being a daft prick.

Youre too dopey for comprehension.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

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]

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]

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.

The facts I presented to regarding our perception of the present obviously reduces your false presentation of Bossy Physics as a pointless claim.

 

[Treeshepherd]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!

Is your avatar a picture of Johnson from Peep Show?

 

[Treeshepherd]

 

[Treeshepherd]

No, not quite.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Anyway, Boss, I like your style.

 

[Boss]

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.

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]

Boss, I really think you're on the right track.

 

[Boss]

Is your avatar a picture of Johnson from Peep Show?

Paterson Joseph, yes.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Is your avatar a picture of Johnson from Peep Show?

Paterson Joseph, yes.

Your posts are thought provoking. I enjoy them.

 

[BreezeWood]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.