God... Is Time.

[Boss]

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.

Again, I don't have to prove anything. We cannot physically observe the present and the admission there is a "delay" is proof that we can't. Our only observation is of a perception we assume to be accurate which happens after the fact. The only way to PROVE our perception is accurate would be if we could possibly observe the moment of present time to confirm there was no change in reality. We can't due to physics. We must have faith in our perception. Nothing wrong with that, it's the same faith we have in God.

 

[Boss]

Is your avatar a picture of Johnson from Peep Show?

Paterson Joseph, yes.

Your posts are thought provoking. I enjoy them.

Thank you. It means a lot to hear this.

 

[edthecynic]

Observation is very important in Science.

Liar!
Observation is never a proof in science. You just make shit up and then pontificate as God.

 

[edthecynic]

The only way to PROVE our perception is accurate would be if we could possibly observe the moment of present time to confirm there was no change in reality.

Pure bullshit!

 

[edthecynic]

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.

A scientist would record the mice in the cage and thus would be able to prove what happened overnight, that he didn't directly observe in the present, by simply watching the video.

 

[Boss]

Observation is very important in Science.

Liar!
Observation is never a proof in science. You just make shit up and then pontificate as God.

You see? Here is a classic example of a moron not reading the same thing that is written. I didn't say observation is proof... where did that come from?

very important =/= proof ...does it??? Apparently so if you're Eddy!

Science cannot evaluate that which cannot be observed. This has always been the primary 'go-to' argument for Atheists who reject God. If you've found some way for Science to evaluate what isn't observable, then you've unlocked one of the greatest enigmas ever known to man... you've unlocked the secret to proving God with Science! Unfortunately, you're too dumb to open your box of Cheerios without help, so I am sure you haven't stumbled upon such a profound formula.

 

[Boss]

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.

A scientist would record the mice in the cage and thus would be able to prove what happened overnight, that he didn't directly observe in the present, by simply watching the video.

But now you are taking the analogy out of context. We're discussing what can be proven when observation is not an option. Simply watching the video is observation. So you've defeated the purpose of the analogy. Now, if Science could unlock the secret of time travel and go into the future so as to be able to view the present as it happens directly, then you may have something.... but we don't know how to do that. All we can do is rely on a perception which happens in the past, after the present has gone.

 

[Boss]

The only way to PROVE our perception is accurate would be if we could possibly observe the moment of present time to confirm there was no change in reality.

Pure bullshit!

Except that, it's NOT.

 

[G.T.]

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.

cuz you say so?

no.

if i flip 100 heads out of 100 on a weighted coin, it is observable that the probability of heads thus far is 100%, and it is observable that the next flip is 99.9999999% likely to BE heads.

The next flip doesnt require as much faith as - say - being dealt black jack 3 times straight from a fair deck.


Only the MOST intelligent minds on the planet can figure out what probabilities do for us. i.e. middle school graduates. Sorry you were left behind.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Again, I don't have to prove anything. We cannot physically observe the present and the admission there is a "delay" is proof that we can't. Our only observation is of a perception we assume to be accurate which happens after the fact. The only way to PROVE our perception is accurate would be if we could possibly observe the moment of present time to confirm there was no change in reality. We can't due to physics. We must have faith in our perception. Nothing wrong with that, it's the same faith we have in God.

Nothing in your slogans and cliches' does anything to support your claims for Bossy's Newfangled Physics or Gawds=time.

Of course, we can observe present time. Your implementation of Bossy's Newfangled Physics reeks of the tactics used by any number of Christian fundie organizations / creationist wackjobs in an attempt to force their dogma into secular matters.

 

[Hollie]

Observation is very important in Science.

Liar!
Observation is never a proof in science. You just make shit up and then pontificate as God.

You see? Here is a classic example of a moron not reading the same thing that is written. I didn't say observation is proof... where did that come from?

very important =/= proof ...does it??? Apparently so if you're Eddy!

Science cannot evaluate that which cannot be observed. This has always been the primary 'go-to' argument for Atheists who reject God. If you've found some way for Science to evaluate what isn't observable, then you've unlocked one of the greatest enigmas ever known to man... you've unlocked the secret to proving God with Science! Unfortunately, you're too dumb to open your box of Cheerios without help, so I am sure you haven't stumbled upon such a profound formula.

Science certainly can evaluate that which cannot be observed. You were previously an example: gravity.

You tend to get so deep into your pontificating that you lose track of your silliness that has been refuted as pointless pontification.

 

[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.

cuz you say so?

no.

if i flip 100 heads out of 100 on a weighted coin, it is observable that the probability of heads thus far is 100%, and it is observable that the next flip is 99.9999999% likely to BE heads.

The next flip doesnt require as much faith as - say - being dealt black jack 3 times straight from a fair deck.


Only the MOST intelligent minds on the planet can figure out what probabilities do for us. i.e. middle school graduates. Sorry you were left behind.

You are now talking about faith in known odds of probability which isn't really what we're talking about. That kind of faith is not unusual, we all have faith in gravity working as it always has. It's because the evidence is observable and verifiable.

We can call this "faith" but it is really more of a confidence in odds. I can jump off a high dive and have confidence I will land safely in the water below. I don't know for certain that I will... a giant wind gust could come along and blow me into the parking lot. I am fairly confident that isn't likely to happen.

So there is a distinct difference in the kind of faith we are discussing, where observation of something is not possible and we have to rely on faith. In that context (which is this argument) faith is faith. Either ya got it or ya don't.

 

[Boss]

Observation is very important in Science.

Liar!
Observation is never a proof in science. You just make shit up and then pontificate as God.

You see? Here is a classic example of a moron not reading the same thing that is written. I didn't say observation is proof... where did that come from?

very important =/= proof ...does it??? Apparently so if you're Eddy!

Science cannot evaluate that which cannot be observed. This has always been the primary 'go-to' argument for Atheists who reject God. If you've found some way for Science to evaluate what isn't observable, then you've unlocked one of the greatest enigmas ever known to man... you've unlocked the secret to proving God with Science! Unfortunately, you're too dumb to open your box of Cheerios without help, so I am sure you haven't stumbled upon such a profound formula.

Science certainly can evaluate that which cannot be observed. You were previously an example: gravity.

You tend to get so deep into your pontificating that you lose track of your silliness that has been refuted as pointless pontification.

Gravity, or the effects of gravity, is observable and testable.

"Science certainly can evaluate that which cannot be observed."~Dingbat

Anything can be "evaluated" whether it's observed or not. Science can't perform scientific experiments and evaluate them, test or measure them on something that isn't observable. You can't give ANY examples of this because it flies in the face of the scientific method.

Hollie, you haven't refuted jack shit here.

 

[G.T.]

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.

cuz you say so?

no.

if i flip 100 heads out of 100 on a weighted coin, it is observable that the probability of heads thus far is 100%, and it is observable that the next flip is 99.9999999% likely to BE heads.

The next flip doesnt require as much faith as - say - being dealt black jack 3 times straight from a fair deck.


Only the MOST intelligent minds on the planet can figure out what probabilities do for us. i.e. middle school graduates. Sorry you were left behind.

You are now talking about faith in known odds of probability which isn't really what we're talking about. That kind of faith is not unusual, we all have faith in gravity working as it always has. It's because the evidence is observable and verifiable.

We can call this "faith" but it is really more of a confidence in odds. I can jump off a high dive and have confidence I will land safely in the water below. I don't know for certain that I will... a giant wind gust could come along and blow me into the parking lot. I am fairly confident that isn't likely to happen.

So there is a distinct difference in the kind of faith we are discussing, where observation of something is not possible and we have to rely on faith. In that context (which is this argument) faith is faith. Either ya got it or ya don't.

I am alive .... check.
I can observe the present, as it was..... check.


The present is verifiable by virtue of my fucking pulse. No faith required.

Then, there is physics which resolve to time being past, present and future and are FAR more reliable than one of boss' half cocked god theories.

 

[G.T.]

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.

cuz you say so?

no.

if i flip 100 heads out of 100 on a weighted coin, it is observable that the probability of heads thus far is 100%, and it is observable that the next flip is 99.9999999% likely to BE heads.

The next flip doesnt require as much faith as - say - being dealt black jack 3 times straight from a fair deck.


Only the MOST intelligent minds on the planet can figure out what probabilities do for us. i.e. middle school graduates. Sorry you were left behind.

You are now talking about faith in known odds of probability which isn't really what we're talking about. That kind of faith is not unusual, we all have faith in gravity working as it always has. It's because the evidence is observable and verifiable.

We can call this "faith" but it is really more of a confidence in odds. I can jump off a high dive and have confidence I will land safely in the water below. I don't know for certain that I will... a giant wind gust could come along and blow me into the parking lot. I am fairly confident that isn't likely to happen.

So there is a distinct difference in the kind of faith we are discussing, where observation of something is not possible and we have to rely on faith. In that context (which is this argument) faith is faith. Either ya got it or ya don't.

And actually.... probability/odds do factor into this.

The present continues to happen.
The universe is measured and defined, we have an idea of what its doing and there is x level of confidence it doesnt just cease.


Of fucking course the odds are a factor

 

[Hollie]

Observation is very important in Science.

Liar!
Observation is never a proof in science. You just make shit up and then pontificate as God.

You see? Here is a classic example of a moron not reading the same thing that is written. I didn't say observation is proof... where did that come from?

very important =/= proof ...does it??? Apparently so if you're Eddy!

Science cannot evaluate that which cannot be observed. This has always been the primary 'go-to' argument for Atheists who reject God. If you've found some way for Science to evaluate what isn't observable, then you've unlocked one of the greatest enigmas ever known to man... you've unlocked the secret to proving God with Science! Unfortunately, you're too dumb to open your box of Cheerios without help, so I am sure you haven't stumbled upon such a profound formula.

Science certainly can evaluate that which cannot be observed. You were previously an example: gravity.

You tend to get so deep into your pontificating that you lose track of your silliness that has been refuted as pointless pontification.

Gravity, or the effects of gravity, is observable and testable.

"Science certainly can evaluate that which cannot be observed."~Dingbat

Anything can be "evaluated" whether it's observed or not. Science can't perform scientific experiments and evaluate them, test or measure them on something that isn't observable. You can't give ANY examples of this because it flies in the face of the scientific method.

Hollie, you haven't refuted jack shit here.

I understand you're angry that you have difficulty composing coherent sentences, but your pontificating will result in exactly that.

"Science cannot evaluate that which cannot be observed™"
~Braindead

Sorry to have to again point out your lack of science vocabulary but I'm sure you're accustomed to that happening often.

Science can evaluate gravity in spite of the force of gravity not being observed. There are other examples but we can wait to present those as a way to refute your next collection of pointless pontifications.

 

[Hollie]

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.

cuz you say so?

no.

if i flip 100 heads out of 100 on a weighted coin, it is observable that the probability of heads thus far is 100%, and it is observable that the next flip is 99.9999999% likely to BE heads.

The next flip doesnt require as much faith as - say - being dealt black jack 3 times straight from a fair deck.


Only the MOST intelligent minds on the planet can figure out what probabilities do for us. i.e. middle school graduates. Sorry you were left behind.

You are now talking about faith in known odds of probability which isn't really what we're talking about. That kind of faith is not unusual, we all have faith in gravity working as it always has. It's because the evidence is observable and verifiable.

We can call this "faith" but it is really more of a confidence in odds. I can jump off a high dive and have confidence I will land safely in the water below. I don't know for certain that I will... a giant wind gust could come along and blow me into the parking lot. I am fairly confident that isn't likely to happen.

So there is a distinct difference in the kind of faith we are discussing, where observation of something is not possible and we have to rely on faith. In that context (which is this argument) faith is faith. Either ya got it or ya don't.

Boss'ism:

faith is faith. Either ya got it or ya don't™

Aw shucks, bossy. Such cute witticism must get chuckles at your bible study meetings but they're otherwise pointless as argumentation.

You make the mistake common among religious zealots of confusing empirical trust with belief in partisan gawds.

That's alright, though. As religious fundamentalists go, you are common.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
faith is nothing more than an educated guess without merit till verified.

.

 

[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.

cuz you say so?

no.

if i flip 100 heads out of 100 on a weighted coin, it is observable that the probability of heads thus far is 100%, and it is observable that the next flip is 99.9999999% likely to BE heads.

The next flip doesnt require as much faith as - say - being dealt black jack 3 times straight from a fair deck.


Only the MOST intelligent minds on the planet can figure out what probabilities do for us. i.e. middle school graduates. Sorry you were left behind.

You are now talking about faith in known odds of probability which isn't really what we're talking about. That kind of faith is not unusual, we all have faith in gravity working as it always has. It's because the evidence is observable and verifiable.

We can call this "faith" but it is really more of a confidence in odds. I can jump off a high dive and have confidence I will land safely in the water below. I don't know for certain that I will... a giant wind gust could come along and blow me into the parking lot. I am fairly confident that isn't likely to happen.

So there is a distinct difference in the kind of faith we are discussing, where observation of something is not possible and we have to rely on faith. In that context (which is this argument) faith is faith. Either ya got it or ya don't.

I am alive .... check.
I can observe the present, as it was..... check.


The present is verifiable by virtue of my fucking pulse. No faith required.

Then, there is physics which resolve to time being past, present and future and are FAR more reliable than one of boss' half cocked god theories.

I am alive .... check. [never said you weren't]
I can observe the present, as it was..... check. [you don't know this]

The present is verifiable by virtue of my fucking pulse. No faith required. [no, it's not verifiable because it cannot be observed.]

Why does it seem like we're just going in circles here? You've posted the same thing several times already and posting it again won't make it any more accurate. Time has nothing to do with whether YOU are alive! Believe it or not, TIME will continue after your ass is dead! So why do you think you being alive is relevant? ...I'm alive, therefore God exists! That's basically YOUR argument applied to God!

You can observe a perception of the present in the past, after the present has passed. You have no way to verify or confirm that what you perceive is as it was because you can never observe "as it was" to find out. You're simply making the assumption based on faith.

Then, there is physics which resolve to time being past, present and future...

Well no, physics doesn't "resolve" anything, we have defined time as past, present and future. Physics is the limitation on physical beings in a physical universe which prevents us from ever observing the moment of present time. The present time occurs and passes before we can perceive it. We have to wait for physics to happen.

I get your argument it's just a failure. You are trying to argue that our perception happening in the past reveals the actual present, but you haven't proven this and you can't because physics won't allow it. You can't observe the present to confirm your theory. You rely on FAITH in your perception, that's ALL you can do as a physical being.

 

[Boss]

Science can evaluate gravity in spite of the force of gravity not being observed.

You are an idiot if you don't think gravitational force is observable!