God... Is Time.

[Hollie]

The illusions are the past, present and future. This is why God can show me pictures of the future that hasn't happened yet. All we can observe is the present picture at all times, no matter if it's a picture from the future or one from the past.

You simply don't know how God created everything.

All we can observe is the present picture at all times, no matter if it's a picture from the future or one from the past.

You're contradicting your own statement here. A picture from the past or future is not the present. All we can observe is the past. You're saying we observe the present picture always but that is not true. We can't observe the present, ever... because physics has to happen and time has to happen. What we perceive as the present is something that has already happened and is forever in the past. I have faith my perception confirms the present but I cannot observe the present so I can't prove it. There is no difference between this and faith in God.

You simply don't know how God created everything.

Well the thread and my OP argument have nothing to do with how God created things. But for the record, I disagree with this as well. Science is totally about showing us how God created things. What we truly don't know is WHY. I can explain to you HOW gravity works, I can't explain WHY gravity exists.

How does science show us how your supernatural gawds used supernatural means to create everything?

 

[Boss]

The illusions are the past, present and future. This is why God can show me pictures of the future that hasn't happened yet. All we can observe is the present picture at all times, no matter if it's a picture from the future or one from the past.

You simply don't know how God created everything.

All we can observe is the present picture at all times, no matter if it's a picture from the future or one from the past.

You're contradicting your own statement here. A picture from the past or future is not the present. All we can observe is the past. You're saying we observe the present picture always but that is not true. We can't observe the present, ever... because physics has to happen and time has to happen. What we perceive as the present is something that has already happened and is forever in the past. I have faith my perception confirms the present but I cannot observe the present so I can't prove it. There is no difference between this and faith in God.

You simply don't know how God created everything.

Well the thread and my OP argument have nothing to do with how God created things. But for the record, I disagree with this as well. Science is totally about showing us how God created things. What we truly don't know is WHY. I can explain to you HOW gravity works, I can't explain WHY gravity exists.

How does science show us how your supernatural gawds used supernatural means to create everything?

Well God is not "supernatural", Hollie. No more supernatural than the instant of present time. We're just unable to observe God directly and must rely on faith.

Supernatural things are outside the parameters of nature but God is part of nature. You just choose to call it "supernatural" because you're not enlightened. Much the same thing happened to Louis Pasteur when he discovered microbial life. People said that was "supernatural" and there was no way that such a thing existed. When Dr. Semmelweiss suggested that surgeons should wash their hands to keep from spreading germs, people said this was "supernatural nonsense" and locked the man away as being crazy.

You proclaiming something is "supernatural" doesn't mean a damn thing. It's just you making noise and being unable to support your noise.

 

[Hollie]

The illusions are the past, present and future. This is why God can show me pictures of the future that hasn't happened yet. All we can observe is the present picture at all times, no matter if it's a picture from the future or one from the past.

You simply don't know how God created everything.

All we can observe is the present picture at all times, no matter if it's a picture from the future or one from the past.

You're contradicting your own statement here. A picture from the past or future is not the present. All we can observe is the past. You're saying we observe the present picture always but that is not true. We can't observe the present, ever... because physics has to happen and time has to happen. What we perceive as the present is something that has already happened and is forever in the past. I have faith my perception confirms the present but I cannot observe the present so I can't prove it. There is no difference between this and faith in God.

You simply don't know how God created everything.

Well the thread and my OP argument have nothing to do with how God created things. But for the record, I disagree with this as well. Science is totally about showing us how God created things. What we truly don't know is WHY. I can explain to you HOW gravity works, I can't explain WHY gravity exists.

How does science show us how your supernatural gawds used supernatural means to create everything?

Well God is not "supernatural", Hollie. No more supernatural than the instant of present time. We're just unable to observe God directly and must rely on faith.

Supernatural things are outside the parameters of nature but God is part of nature. You just choose to call it "supernatural" because you're not enlightened. Much the same thing happened to Louis Pasteur when he discovered microbial life. People said that was "supernatural" and there was no way that such a thing existed. When Dr. Semmelweiss suggested that surgeons should wash their hands to keep from spreading germs, people said this was "supernatural nonsense" and locked the man away as being crazy.

You proclaiming something is "supernatural" doesn't mean a damn thing. It's just you making noise and being unable to support your noise.

Odd that you're rattling on about noise. I hear a lot of noise about your gawds but you're never able to make a case for their existence. It's just so convenient that you use the weasel of "faith" as a requirement to experience your gawds because as we know, your gawds, like all the other claims to gawds are always conveniently beyond the ability of the religionist to demonstrate.

That's interesting because like the typical religious extremist, you will require the mechanisms of science to disprove your gawds. You will use the "you can't prove it isn't" claim as somehow supporting your case for the existence of your particular supernatural realms inhabited by supernatural gawds.

 

[there4eyeM]

Are you even listening to yourself?
"God is part of nature"?
If 'God' exists, it is nature that is part of 'God', and God is the very definition of 'Supernatural', being above and beyond mere nature.
Your arguments and position are not a matter of faith, simply semantics. Now is the only time any action can happen. It has no dependence on the delay in time that may occur to perceive it. When it is perceived, the perception happens in the now.

 

[Boss]

Odd that you're rattling on about noise. I hear a lot of noise about your gawds but you're never able to make a case for their existence. It's just so convenient that you use the weasel of "faith" as a requirement to experience your gawds because as we know, your gawds, like all the other claims to gawds are always conveniently beyond the ability of the religionist to demonstrate.

That's interesting because like the typical religious extremist, you will require the mechanisms of science to disprove your gawds. You will use the "you can't prove it isn't" claim as somehow supporting your case for the existence of your particular supernatural realms inhabited by supernatural gawds.

Well that's the point of the OP. Faith is required to accept that "the present" is as we perceive it to be. We can't observe the present just like we can't observe God. It's not about "convenience" it's just how physics work in a physical universe. It's about the difference in what we perceive and what we can observe directly.

You're hung up on religious incarnations of God which I can't speak for or make any claims for. You also seem to be hung up on the notion that your perception of the present is happening instantly without time or physics... quite stupid, but that seems to be your belief. You don't seem to grasp that light has to travel, the brain has to compute, it doesn't all happen instantaneously. By the time you've perceived the present it is already in the past and has been there a while. Physics had to happen, light had to travel, time had to pass. You simply cannot observe the present.

 

[Hollie]

Odd that you're rattling on about noise. I hear a lot of noise about your gawds but you're never able to make a case for their existence. It's just so convenient that you use the weasel of "faith" as a requirement to experience your gawds because as we know, your gawds, like all the other claims to gawds are always conveniently beyond the ability of the religionist to demonstrate.

That's interesting because like the typical religious extremist, you will require the mechanisms of science to disprove your gawds. You will use the "you can't prove it isn't" claim as somehow supporting your case for the existence of your particular supernatural realms inhabited by supernatural gawds.

Well that's the point of the OP. Faith is required to accept that "the present" is as we perceive it to be. We can't observe the present just like we can't observe God. It's not about "convenience" it's just how physics work in a physical universe. It's about the difference in what we perceive and what we can observe directly.

You're hung up on religious incarnations of God which I can't speak for or make any claims for. You also seem to be hung up on the notion that your perception of the present is happening instantly without time or physics... quite stupid, but that seems to be your belief. You don't seem to grasp that light has to travel, the brain has to compute, it doesn't all happen instantaneously. By the time you've perceived the present it is already in the past and has been there a while. Physics had to happen, light had to travel, time had to pass. You simply cannot observe the present.

We actually can observe the present. You object to that because your perception of time and reality is skewed by your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

We obviously can observe the present but your perceptions of the various gawds you have created are yours alone. There is no reason to accept that your gawds have any connection to time, space or contingent history. Like the typical religionist, you insist that your gawds are real and extant to the exclusion of other gawds, who's promoters similarly dismiss your gawds while insisting their gawds are the true gawds.

Why are the gawds of others true and yours, not so much?

 

[Boss]

Are you even listening to yourself?
"God is part of nature"?
If 'God' exists, it is nature that is part of 'God', and God is the very definition of 'Supernatural', being above and beyond mere nature.
Your arguments and position are not a matter of faith, simply semantics. Now is the only time any action can happen. It has no dependence on the delay in time that may occur to perceive it. When it is perceived, the perception happens in the now.

I read everything I post before I post it, so yes... I am listening to myself.

"Supernatural" is just a word we use to describe something not defined by nature. Why it's not defined could be because we've not discovered it yet.

Now you can keep repeating the same thing over and over again, it's just not relevant. "Now" is not a time. "Now" can mean all kinds of different things, I've presented numerous examples to demonstrate this, so why are you STILL claiming it means something specific? Is my demonstration not getting through or something? "Now is the time to vote for a Republican" ...does "now" mean the instant of present time? No, it clearly does not! We can't vote right now, we have to wait until November on election day. As anyone with a functioning brain can see, the word "now" doesn't mean the instant of present time. In fact, it can mean any number of things depending on the context in which it's presented.

Yes, a perception happens, but "happens" means it took time. Even a retarded person should understand that nothing can "happen" unless time also happens. Are you having trouble comprehending that? Nothing you can perceive happened instantly, it's not possible because of physics. Things that "happen" take time, including your processing of information which gives you the perception of present time. Your perception, therefore, is based solely on FAITH. No different than any faith in God which you also cannot observe directly.

 

[Boss]

We actually can observe the present.

No we can't because it's impossible due to physics. You cannot explain how we can observe the present, only how we can perceive a perception of the present which already happened.

 

[Hollie]

We actually can observe the present.

No we can't because it's impossible due to physics. You cannot explain how we can observe the present, only how we can perceive a perception of the present which already happened.

Yes we can because nothing in physics prevents that. The problem you have is that your understanding of physics must be modified as needed to accommodate the supernatural intervention of your gawds.

 

[Boss]

We obviously can observe the present...

No we can't and your insisting that it's obvious is not Science, Hollie. It's impossible for us to observe the present moment of time, no matter how much you think we can or presume we do. ALL your perceptions REQUIRE time and physics to happen. This has nothing to do with my spiritual viewpoints it's pure unadulterated physics.

 

[Boss]

We actually can observe the present.

No we can't because it's impossible due to physics. You cannot explain how we can observe the present, only how we can perceive a perception of the present which already happened.

Yes we can because nothing in physics prevents that. The problem you have is that your understanding of physics must be modified as needed to accommodate the supernatural intervention of your gawds.

Yes, everything in physics prevents us from observing the instant of present time. Before we can perceive anything, time has to happen. I'm not modifying anything, you are. You are trying to say that light doesn't have to travel, we see it instantly. That is physics illiteracy in a nutshell. We know that light travels, we know the speed of light. We also know that nothing can "happen" without time passing... not in a physical sense, anyway.

 

[Hollie]

We actually can observe the present.

No we can't because it's impossible due to physics. You cannot explain how we can observe the present, only how we can perceive a perception of the present which already happened.

Yes we can because nothing in physics prevents that. The problem you have is that your understanding of physics must be modified as needed to accommodate the supernatural intervention of your gawds.

Yes, everything in physics prevents us from observing the instant of present time. Before we can perceive anything, time has to happen. I'm not modifying anything, you are. You are trying to say that light doesn't have to travel, we see it instantly. That is physics illiteracy in a nutshell. We know that light travels, we know the speed of light. We also know that nothing can "happen" without time passing... not in a physical sense, anyway.

I think the physics information you get from creation ministries is intended to cater to a specific audience. I can understand that you have an emotional attachment to your arguments involving gawds but you shouldn't let emotional/religious biases color your argument.

 

[Boss]

We actually can observe the present.

No we can't because it's impossible due to physics. You cannot explain how we can observe the present, only how we can perceive a perception of the present which already happened.

Yes we can because nothing in physics prevents that. The problem you have is that your understanding of physics must be modified as needed to accommodate the supernatural intervention of your gawds.

Yes, everything in physics prevents us from observing the instant of present time. Before we can perceive anything, time has to happen. I'm not modifying anything, you are. You are trying to say that light doesn't have to travel, we see it instantly. That is physics illiteracy in a nutshell. We know that light travels, we know the speed of light. We also know that nothing can "happen" without time passing... not in a physical sense, anyway.

I think the physics information you get from creation ministries is intended to cater to a specific audience. I can understand that you have an emotional attachment to your arguments involving gawds but you shouldn't let emotional/religious biases color your argument.

I don't get information from any ministry or religion, Hollie. What I presented is physics, not theology. There is no emotional attachment on my part, although you seem to be emotively connected to ignorance of physics. I'm sorry you're stupid and this is flying over your empty head, I wish I could explain it where you could understand but you have to first understand how physics work and you don't seem to know. Since you are over your head in a science debate, you want to turn the thread into a theology debate, specifically the Christian theology, which you seem to have a particular disdain for. I'm not letting you do that and it's frustrating you, so you're now calling me names and inferring lies about what I've posted.

I'm sorry that I'm not a Christian you can get all worked up and angry over silly shit you say. The tactic just doesn't work on me because I'm not a Christian and not religious. You can keep trying it and I'll just keep putting you in your place, exposing you as the liar you are, and continue to make my argument which you've not refuted. Now... you can either grow the fuck up and discuss the thread OP, you can fuck off and find another thread where your tactics work, or you can just keep on blathering like the idiot you are about something you don't have a clue about and I'll keep exposing you as the fool you are. It really, honestly, does not make two shits worth of difference to me what you do.

 

[Hollie]

We actually can observe the present.

No we can't because it's impossible due to physics. You cannot explain how we can observe the present, only how we can perceive a perception of the present which already happened.

Yes we can because nothing in physics prevents that. The problem you have is that your understanding of physics must be modified as needed to accommodate the supernatural intervention of your gawds.

Yes, everything in physics prevents us from observing the instant of present time. Before we can perceive anything, time has to happen. I'm not modifying anything, you are. You are trying to say that light doesn't have to travel, we see it instantly. That is physics illiteracy in a nutshell. We know that light travels, we know the speed of light. We also know that nothing can "happen" without time passing... not in a physical sense, anyway.

I think the physics information you get from creation ministries is intended to cater to a specific audience. I can understand that you have an emotional attachment to your arguments involving gawds but you shouldn't let emotional/religious biases color your argument.

I don't get information from any ministry or religion, Hollie. What I presented is physics, not theology. There is no emotional attachment on my part, although you seem to be emotively connected to ignorance of physics. I'm sorry you're stupid and this is flying over your empty head, I wish I could explain it where you could understand but you have to first understand how physics work and you don't seem to know. Since you are over your head in a science debate, you want to turn the thread into a theology debate, specifically the Christian theology, which you seem to have a particular disdain for. I'm not letting you do that and it's frustrating you, so you're now calling me names and inferring lies about what I've posted.

I'm sorry that I'm not a Christian you can get all worked up and angry over silly shit you say. The tactic just doesn't work on me because I'm not a Christian and not religious. You can keep trying it and I'll just keep putting you in your place, exposing you as the liar you are, and continue to make my argument which you've not refuted. Now... you can either grow the fuck up and discuss the thread OP, you can fuck off and find another thread where your tactics work, or you can just keep on blathering like the idiot you are about something you don't have a clue about and I'll keep exposing you as the fool you are. It really, honestly, does not make two shits worth of difference to me what you do.

Your insistence that God=time is certainly theology. When you insist that your position is tied to supernatural gawds, you certainly are appealing to religion / theology. You seem to be confused by the disciplines of science vs. claims of supernaturalism.

Aside from your frantic, chest-heaving insistence that you have put anyone in their place, that's quite in contrast to the reality of your bogus statement god=time of that perception of the present in in violation of some inside physics that remains a "law" only in some alternate reality I abutted by you and your conception of supernatural realms.

This is yet another thread wherein you attempt to connect your invention of gawds and supernatural realms with elements of science and theses threads always fail.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the OP is claiming his " God " communicates through a physiological brain ... or that the Spirit uses " grey matter " but may not understand the present wheresas his God can.

nothing more than a moralist (biblical) mentality, also based on, " Only God knows for certain " ... the same as the Time theory of " not knowing ".

obviously lacking in the art of Completion.

- is the reason behind the Faith Based Mentality - do not let yourself or anyone else learn the Truth or reach the Apex of Knowledge.

.

 

[Boss]

the OP is claiming his " God " communicates through a physiological brain ... or that the Spirit uses " grey matter " but may not understand the present wheresas his God can.

Boy you must be reading a different OP because mine doesn't make any argument claiming anything about anyone's God. I haven't said a word about communicating with God or physiological brains or grey matter.... that's all you, bucko.

I didn't say anything about "not understanding" the present. I said that humans can't observe the moment of present time. That remains a true statement that hasn't been refuted. We can play these silly games where you all post total fabrications of what you wish I had said or whatever the hell you call yourself doing... I don't really see the point in that.

Is there some reason none of you can discuss the actual OP and topic? Why do you all keep trying to derail the thread or turn it into a theology debate? It's getting frustrating.

 

[Boss]

No we can't because it's impossible due to physics. You cannot explain how we can observe the present, only how we can perceive a perception of the present which already happened.

Yes we can because nothing in physics prevents that. The problem you have is that your understanding of physics must be modified as needed to accommodate the supernatural intervention of your gawds.

Yes, everything in physics prevents us from observing the instant of present time. Before we can perceive anything, time has to happen. I'm not modifying anything, you are. You are trying to say that light doesn't have to travel, we see it instantly. That is physics illiteracy in a nutshell. We know that light travels, we know the speed of light. We also know that nothing can "happen" without time passing... not in a physical sense, anyway.

I think the physics information you get from creation ministries is intended to cater to a specific audience. I can understand that you have an emotional attachment to your arguments involving gawds but you shouldn't let emotional/religious biases color your argument.

I don't get information from any ministry or religion, Hollie. What I presented is physics, not theology. There is no emotional attachment on my part, although you seem to be emotively connected to ignorance of physics. I'm sorry you're stupid and this is flying over your empty head, I wish I could explain it where you could understand but you have to first understand how physics work and you don't seem to know. Since you are over your head in a science debate, you want to turn the thread into a theology debate, specifically the Christian theology, which you seem to have a particular disdain for. I'm not letting you do that and it's frustrating you, so you're now calling me names and inferring lies about what I've posted.

I'm sorry that I'm not a Christian you can get all worked up and angry over silly shit you say. The tactic just doesn't work on me because I'm not a Christian and not religious. You can keep trying it and I'll just keep putting you in your place, exposing you as the liar you are, and continue to make my argument which you've not refuted. Now... you can either grow the fuck up and discuss the thread OP, you can fuck off and find another thread where your tactics work, or you can just keep on blathering like the idiot you are about something you don't have a clue about and I'll keep exposing you as the fool you are. It really, honestly, does not make two shits worth of difference to me what you do.

Your insistence that God=time is certainly theology. When you insist that your position is tied to supernatural gawds, you certainly are appealing to religion / theology. You seem to be confused by the disciplines of science vs. claims of supernaturalism.

Aside from your frantic, chest-heaving insistence that you have put anyone in their place, that's quite in contrast to the reality of your bogus statement god=time of that perception of the present in in violation of some inside physics that remains a "law" only in some alternate reality I abutted by you and your conception of supernatural realms.

This is yet another thread wherein you attempt to connect your invention of gawds and supernatural realms with elements of science and theses threads always fail.

Like I said, you're a dummy. You don't understand basic physics. There is no way to communicate with you because you're unable to comprehend the most simply scientific principles. All you know how to do is attack Krishtuns.

 

[Boss]

This is yet another thread wherein you attempt to connect your invention of gawds and supernatural realms with elements of science and theses threads always fail.

But this thread hasn't failed. You're still responding and so are others. In fact, this thread has had more replies than the last 20 threads you've posted, combined. Your threads fail, sweetheart, mine are epic.

The argument submitted in the OP has not been refuted and it can't be... it's bulletproof. Time and physics must first happen before humans can experience perception. There is no work-around, that's a fact of life and physics in a physical universe. Our perception of "the present" is happening in the past, the present has already come and gone before we can perceive it. We rely on faith... the same faith we have in God... that our perception of the present is accurate.

 

[Hollie]

Yes we can because nothing in physics prevents that. The problem you have is that your understanding of physics must be modified as needed to accommodate the supernatural intervention of your gawds.

Yes, everything in physics prevents us from observing the instant of present time. Before we can perceive anything, time has to happen. I'm not modifying anything, you are. You are trying to say that light doesn't have to travel, we see it instantly. That is physics illiteracy in a nutshell. We know that light travels, we know the speed of light. We also know that nothing can "happen" without time passing... not in a physical sense, anyway.

I think the physics information you get from creation ministries is intended to cater to a specific audience. I can understand that you have an emotional attachment to your arguments involving gawds but you shouldn't let emotional/religious biases color your argument.

I don't get information from any ministry or religion, Hollie. What I presented is physics, not theology. There is no emotional attachment on my part, although you seem to be emotively connected to ignorance of physics. I'm sorry you're stupid and this is flying over your empty head, I wish I could explain it where you could understand but you have to first understand how physics work and you don't seem to know. Since you are over your head in a science debate, you want to turn the thread into a theology debate, specifically the Christian theology, which you seem to have a particular disdain for. I'm not letting you do that and it's frustrating you, so you're now calling me names and inferring lies about what I've posted.

I'm sorry that I'm not a Christian you can get all worked up and angry over silly shit you say. The tactic just doesn't work on me because I'm not a Christian and not religious. You can keep trying it and I'll just keep putting you in your place, exposing you as the liar you are, and continue to make my argument which you've not refuted. Now... you can either grow the fuck up and discuss the thread OP, you can fuck off and find another thread where your tactics work, or you can just keep on blathering like the idiot you are about something you don't have a clue about and I'll keep exposing you as the fool you are. It really, honestly, does not make two shits worth of difference to me what you do.

Your insistence that God=time is certainly theology. When you insist that your position is tied to supernatural gawds, you certainly are appealing to religion / theology. You seem to be confused by the disciplines of science vs. claims of supernaturalism.

Aside from your frantic, chest-heaving insistence that you have put anyone in their place, that's quite in contrast to the reality of your bogus statement god=time of that perception of the present in in violation of some inside physics that remains a "law" only in some alternate reality I abutted by you and your conception of supernatural realms.

This is yet another thread wherein you attempt to connect your invention of gawds and supernatural realms with elements of science and theses threads always fail.

Like I said, you're a dummy. You don't understand basic physics. There is no way to communicate with you because you're unable to comprehend the most simply scientific principles. All you know how to do is attack Krishtuns.

Typical, frantic reaction when you're arguments are shown to be fraudulent .

 

[Hollie]

This is yet another thread wherein you attempt to connect your invention of gawds and supernatural realms with elements of science and theses threads always fail.

But this thread hasn't failed. You're still responding and so are others. In fact, this thread has had more replies than the last 20 threads you've posted, combined. Your threads fail, sweetheart, mine are epic.

The argument submitted in the OP has not been refuted and it can't be... it's bulletproof. Time and physics must first happen before humans can experience perception. There is no work-around, that's a fact of life and physics in a physical universe. Our perception of "the present" is happening in the past, the present has already come and gone before we can perceive it. We rely on faith... the same faith we have in God... that our perception of the present is accurate.

Of course the thread has failed. You have been proselytizing for your religion by trying to connect physics with some claim that we must have religious faith in the present.

It's silly and pointless.