God... Is Time.

[Hollie]

Where DID God come from? Pulled himself out of his hat? Scary thing is, science doesn't know what caused the big bang, either. You can't get something out of nothing. Matter is like 99.99 percent nothing. Perhaps the multiverse doesn't need a God because perhaps, it just always existed.

God didn't "come from" anywhere because God is everywhere.

LOL.. Science currently doesn't even know if there WAS a big bang... that's all being revisited at this time due to new discoveries like the universe being 96% dark matter and dark energy, of which we know little about. The singularity was always problematic because it seemingly has to defy physics... this bugged the shit out of Stephen Hawking. He has spent the last 40 years disproving his own theory on singularity and the big bang.

Again... we're getting way off topic from the OP.

Which of the gawds are everywhere?

Can you support your comment about the gawds with anything more than your usual, pointless, ".... because I say so", commandment?

 

[edthecynic]

The entire universe could simply disappear before another second passes because that's what happens to physical universes every 14.5 billion years and we didn't know that.

You could be "observing" a falling body, and poof!

You could indeed. Our perception of it won't be until AFTER it happens.

But that doesn't change the fact that you observed it falling up to the point it went poof!

 

[Toro]

Right now, God is 10:16pm ET.

 

[Boss]

I just read something on relativity, physicists believe time is another dimension like the X, Y, or Z axis in space. And time is like the groves on a record player, it exist in it's entity all at once. Time is an illusion, like the needle of a record player playing a grove, and humans are like the needles of that record player. That groove existed all the time, we just follow it. Not God, definitely not.

Not God, definitely not.

Not so fast... If our existence and universe is like a pre-recorded record, God is the greatest record producer in the history of history. What an amazing compilation! A masterpiece so beautiful it is beyond words.

That is Einstein talking about time, just paraphrasing a little. Time is an illusion caused by our senses. It is another dimension. That is all. I don't understand it well, either, times arrow is an trick of our senses, I will leave it there.

Well you are at the point of the OP. Time in the present is non-observable because we have to wait for physics to happen in order to perceive it. This means time must pass and that means our perception is forever in the past. All we are capable of observing is time which has passed, we cannot observe the moment of the present.

Hollie can because Hollie is her own Gawd. But physical humans can't, we rely on our faith in a perception we receive after the fact. As Einstein correctly states... an illusion.

 

[Boss]

The entire universe could simply disappear before another second passes because that's what happens to physical universes every 14.5 billion years and we didn't know that.

You could be "observing" a falling body, and poof!

You could indeed. Our perception of it won't be until AFTER it happens.

But that doesn't change the fact that you observed it falling up to the point it went poof!

You didn't observe it in the present because you can't observe the present.

 

[MaryL]

,

I first considered writing the one-millionth thread on the philosophical discussion of a Creator, then I paused and thought deeper. Is there some way to break through the typical mundane chore of battling our way through various debates on religion and religious dogma to arrive at some point of mutual understanding or consideration? I am not sure if there is, but it's worth thinking about if you are able to hang your preconceptions at the door and be open minded.

The primary weapon of those who disbelieve concepts of God is science. There is no physical evidence to support the idea of God, therefore God is rejected as a possibility. We are all familiar with the argument, so what is the point in yet another thread to debate this? It's really pointless, right? But the thing is, science doesn't draw conclusions of certainty on the matter of God, or anything else, really. Science merely explores probability and possibility. Man creates conclusions of certainty, and at that moment, he also abandons science for faith. Science continues to explore possibility, and if possibility has been determined to not exist, science can do no more.

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. You see-- Every physical sense we have depends on the passing of time to happen. Something may happen in present time but by the time you perceive it, time has passed and it's in the past. The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. If we cannot observe it, does it really exist?

Science is the deceiver? The one thing that put a man on the moon or lead to the internet and found cures for polio or leprosy...What? To get back on topic, what has RELIGION done for us lately? Isis and Beheadings, And the Vatican bank or pedophile scandal. I am reaching for something GOOD to say about religion...

 

[edthecynic]

The entire universe could simply disappear before another second passes because that's what happens to physical universes every 14.5 billion years and we didn't know that.

You could be "observing" a falling body, and poof!

You could indeed. Our perception of it won't be until AFTER it happens.

But that doesn't change the fact that you observed it falling up to the point it went poof!

You didn't observe it in the present because you can't observe the present.

You are still wrong. Everything you observe happened in the present, so you can observe the present. Saying you can't observe the present IN the present is not the same as saying you can't observe the present, as you do. You need a lesson in basic English.

 

[MaryL]

Time is NOT god. Birth. Change, rust, decay.. Aging. Death. Predetermination... ? It's our curse as mortals. Time may be just an illusion, I don't know, mortality isn't as bad as it sounds. But Heaven (or hell), and after life, not even Einstein knew.

 

[G.T.]

Of course we can observe the present.

Well... No we can't, Hollie. I've already explained why it's impossible and you seem to be the only person in the forum who doesn't understand it. We cannot observe the moment of present time. Physics has to give us a perception first, which takes time, which means the present is not observed.

We have a perception of the present and we have faith our perception is accurately depicting what the moment of present was. We can't confirm this because we cannot observe the present, we are bound by physics.

Again, for all you Einstein's in training out there... If you've found a way for Science or Physics to test and measure something that cannot be observed, you have unlocked the scientific formula for proving God. Let church bells ring, glory, glory, hallelujah!

I maintain that you have proven no such thing and you can't prove it.

Our perception is literally the observation twat

We have faith that it is.

No.

Its reality.

Comparing it to faith in god is nutter bullshit.

Your thread is retarded and ill continue to point it out until it dies. And youll continue to flail, change definitions, contradict yourself and be all around ignorant.

I've not changed or contradicted anything. My OP argument remains solid and irrefutable. You clearly understand that we can't physically observe the moment of present time, but that only puts you one small step ahead of Hollie Airbrains. You want to argue that our perception happening after-the-fact is just automatically confirmed to be accurate because, well just because you think it is. But if you cannot observe the present to confirm it, how do you know? You've still offered no explanation.

The answer is very simple. You have faith in your perception of the present. We all do, that's all we can have because we cannot observe the present. So you get that far and you want to start micromanaging faith, like it's some kind of commodity that varies. Faith is faith, you either have faith in something or you don't. If you want to play the odds game, I would say the odds of God existing is the same as the odds of present time existing as we perceive it.

Your perception IS observation.

You lose.

 

[Boss]

The entire universe could simply disappear before another second passes because that's what happens to physical universes every 14.5 billion years and we didn't know that.

You could be "observing" a falling body, and poof!

You could indeed. Our perception of it won't be until AFTER it happens.

But that doesn't change the fact that you observed it falling up to the point it went poof!

You didn't observe it in the present because you can't observe the present.

You are still wrong. Everything you observe happened in the present, so you can observe the present. Saying you can't observe the present IN the present is not the same as saying you can't observe the present, as you do. You need a lesson in basic English.

How do you know? You say everything you observe happened in the present but if you can't observe the present you cannot confirm this.

Answer: FAITH.

 

[Hollie]

You could be "observing" a falling body, and poof!

You could indeed. Our perception of it won't be until AFTER it happens.

But that doesn't change the fact that you observed it falling up to the point it went poof!

You didn't observe it in the present because you can't observe the present.

You are still wrong. Everything you observe happened in the present, so you can observe the present. Saying you can't observe the present IN the present is not the same as saying you can't observe the present, as you do. You need a lesson in basic English.

How do you know? You say everything you observe happened in the present but if you can't observe the present you cannot confirm this.

Answer: FAITH.

When we observe the present, we witness the present. No gawds required.

 

[Hollie]

Time is NOT god. Birth. Change, rust, decay.. Aging. Death. Predetermination... ? It's our curse as mortals. Time may be just an illusion, I don't know, mortality isn't as bad as it sounds. But Heaven (or hell), and after life, not even Einstein knew.

Time=gawds is Bossy's method of proselytizing for his fundamentalist religious beliefs.

 

[Boss]

Your perception IS observation.

You lose.

So now we roll back to this one again? I don't have time for this, GT. We've already discussed the difference between perception and observation, back on page 6 or 7. Perception IS NOT observation when it comes to science and scientific evaluation. Now it may be the same on SpongeBob Squrepants or in a Kate Bush song, I wouldn't know. But I can give you endless examples of how perception is certainly NOT scientific observation, which is what we're discussing here.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, we can observe the present.

No we can't and physics proves we can't. You're a goofball.

Of course we can observe the present. That conflicts with your intended purpose of this thread - to proselytize for your gawds, but religion is not science and you need to learn to separate your fundamentalist religious beliefs from the discipline of science.

 

[Boss]

Science is the deceiver? The one thing that put a man on the moon or lead to the internet and found cures for polio or leprosy...What? To get back on topic, what has RELIGION done for us lately? Isis and Beheadings, And the Vatican bank or pedophile scandal. I am reaching for something GOOD to say about religion...

The topic here is NOT Religion. This is not a theological argument. The first paragraph of the OP makes this clear and I've gone out of my way to point this out to others throughout the thread when they started trying to interject their religious beliefs or tear into rants against religion. If you want to start a debate about the "Good, Bad and Ugly" of Religion, be my guest... sounds like a good topic and I will probably give my opinions. This is not that thread and I'm not going to let it be turned into that thread.

The thread is in the Religion forum because that's where philosophy threads such as this are supposed to go. I can't help that USMB doesn't have a more suitable place. My OP is more about physics and human faith than anything religious.

 

[Boss]

You could indeed. Our perception of it won't be until AFTER it happens.

But that doesn't change the fact that you observed it falling up to the point it went poof!

You didn't observe it in the present because you can't observe the present.

You are still wrong. Everything you observe happened in the present, so you can observe the present. Saying you can't observe the present IN the present is not the same as saying you can't observe the present, as you do. You need a lesson in basic English.

How do you know? You say everything you observe happened in the present but if you can't observe the present you cannot confirm this.

Answer: FAITH.

When we observe the present, we witness the present. No gawds required.

We don't observe the present, we can't observe it because of physics. All human observation depends on time happening and if time is happening, you are not in the moment of present time.

Belief in God is a matter of personal faith. So is belief in our perceptions of the present.

 

[Boss]

Of course we can observe the present.

Of course we can't... not unless you are a god who can defy physics.

 

[there4eyeM]

Even IF it were accepted that the present could not be directly perceived (though clearly this poster does not see it that way), there is still no act of faith involved. One has no alternative to trusting one's perceptions. It isn't even a thought. Believing in something implies contrast, choice. It isn't a logical use of the term to say, "I have faith that I exist". Merely posing the question proves the case.

 

[G.T.]

Your perception IS observation.

You lose.

So now we roll back to this one again? I don't have time for this, GT. We've already discussed the difference between perception and observation, back on page 6 or 7. Perception IS NOT observation when it comes to science and scientific evaluation. Now it may be the same on SpongeBob Squrepants or in a Kate Bush song, I wouldn't know. But I can give you endless examples of how perception is certainly NOT scientific observation, which is what we're discussing here.

You are a damn fool.

If you are observing the present but in the past, you are srill observing it.

If not, NOTHING is observible because its ALL the past, as youve conceded.

So in boss world, literally NOTHING is observable.

You are one daft fuck up.

 

[Hollie]

Of course we can observe the present.

Of course we can't... not unless you are a god who can defy physics.

Of course we can. You need to understand that your fundamentalist religious beliefs are separate from science.