God... Is Time.

[there4eyeM]

The argument has been constructed in such a way that it is seemingly irrefutable. Words can be arranged that way. By defining the present as something that cannot be perceived, of course it is impossible to be in the present.
What has not been accepted by others is exactly that definition.
For me, what is in my mind now is and must be the present. The terms 'present' and 'now' are otherwise meaningless.
Furthermore, to propose the 'God' is time is to, again, nullify the meaning of terms. For 'God' to be 'God' means that Being must be beyond any creation, which time itself must be.
These you refuse to address since you are not in a religion, yet you play with the term 'God' as if it could be divorced form religious concepts and reasoning.
The thread may be a success to you, but you have established only your determination to maintain your position.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

So, the success of a thread depends on the amount of replies? The more replies, the more factual it becomes...mmmmmm. I'll try to remember that.

I guess 9-11 was an inside job....smh!

WTC building 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[theword]

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.

I can tell you why gravity exists but only if you can believe it. You don't believe in the information God has given me about how we're able to see things so most likely, you won't believe in anything I share with you.

Gravity exists because God created this illusion to make us feel secure while walking on this earth. We won't need gravity in the next age because we will have the ability to float or fly in our new visions and dreams that he has already designed for us.

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.

 

[theword]

We cannot see the present.

As pointed out over and over, the present does not require that it is seen to exist.

Exactly. But many things exist without being seen. If it cannot be directly observed, it can't be tested, evaluated or measured. It's impossible to observe the present. The very best we can ever accomplish as physical beings is perception of time which has already passed. The laws of physics can't be denied.

When you listen to physicists instead of the voice of God, you can expect to remain thoroughly confused. Physicists do not understand how we were created or how life is experienced.

This isn't about how life was created or how we experience life. It's also not a pissing match between my God and your God. This isn't a theological argument.

I am not the least bit confused, we simply cannot observe the moment of present time because physics has to happen first, which means time has to pass first. Once time has passed it's no longer the instant of present, it's forever in the past. What we perceive as the present is already in the past, we rely on our faith in the perception we have of something that already happened and is forever in the past.

Now... We ASSUME the present is as we perceive it but we cannot observe the actual instant of present time, it's not possible because physics and time must happen first. If you can wrap your mind around this, then it's possible that the thing we perceive as "the present" is a creation by the Almighty Creator who is not constrained by limitations of physics and time. In essence, God is constantly creating the entire physical universe every nanosecond for us to perceive. We can't observe it because we're humans bound by physics and time.

You have made this into a pissing contest because of your lack of belief in what our Creator has revealed to me. He's the one who created everything, not physicists.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I can tell you why gravity exists but only if you can believe it. You don't believe in the information God has given me about how we're able to see things so most likely, you won't believe in anything I share with you.

Gravity exists because God created this illusion to make us feel secure while walking on this earth. We won't need gravity in the next age because we will have the ability to float or fly in our new visions and dreams that he has already designed for us.

If you're really serious, you'll start taking harp lessons to get more prepared.

 

[Boss]

The argument has been constructed in such a way that it is seemingly irrefutable. Words can be arranged that way. By defining the present as something that cannot be perceived, of course it is impossible to be in the present.
What has not been accepted by others is exactly that definition.
For me, what is in my mind now is and must be the present. The terms 'present' and 'now' are otherwise meaningless.
Furthermore, to propose the 'God' is time is to, again, nullify the meaning of terms. For 'God' to be 'God' means that Being must be beyond any creation, which time itself must be.
These you refuse to address since you are not in a religion, yet you play with the term 'God' as if it could be divorced form religious concepts and reasoning.
The thread may be a success to you, but you have established only your determination to maintain your position.

Well... You can ignore physics and presume that what you are perceiving as reality in the present didn't have to arrive in your brain and be processed, but we know that isn't true. No one is rearranging any words or specially constructing an argument, it's all basic physics.

As for God and religion, there is no reason God must be tied to a religion. I am a Spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God but I don't belong to any religion or adhere to any religious dogma. I think all religions are inherently flawed as creations of man.

In the context of the OP title, it has been explained this is intentionally allegoric. The point is, the very same faith we have in "the present" is no different than faith in God. If "the present" exists in a state which we cannot observe, test, evaluate or measure, then so can God. we know by the principles of physics, the instant of present time is beyond our ability to observe.

 

[there4eyeM]

There is no 'faith' in perception, just perception.

 

[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.

So, the success of a thread depends on the amount of replies? The more replies, the more factual it becomes...mmmmmm. I'll try to remember that.

I guess 9-11 was an inside job....smh!

WTC building 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

When did someone say a thread becomes more factual the more replies it has?

I presented an argument in the OP, if you want to challenge it's validity, you need to submit a counter argument. Popping in to say you reject the OP is not an argument.

 

[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.

So, the success of a thread depends on the amount of replies? The more replies, the more factual it becomes...mmmmmm. I'll try to remember that.

I guess 9-11 was an inside job....smh!

WTC building 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

When did someone say a thread becomes more factual the more replies it has?

I presented an argument in the OP, if you want to challenge it's validity, you need to submit a counter argument. Popping in to say you reject the OP is not an argument.

Your usual "...... because I say so" commandment is hardly an argument.

 

[Boss]

There is no 'faith' in perception, just perception.

Again, you are factually incorrect. Perception simply cannot happen in the moment of present time, it's dependent upon physics happening and time passing. You must have faith that the perception you have of present time is accurate. You can't prove that it is anymore than you can prove God exists, it relies on faith.

 

[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.

So, the success of a thread depends on the amount of replies? The more replies, the more factual it becomes...mmmmmm. I'll try to remember that.

I guess 9-11 was an inside job....smh!

WTC building 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

When did someone say a thread becomes more factual the more replies it has?

I presented an argument in the OP, if you want to challenge it's validity, you need to submit a counter argument. Popping in to say you reject the OP is not an argument.

Your usual "...... because I say so" commandment is hardly an argument.

I don't say so, physics says so.

 

[there4eyeM]

A final, parting statement; arguing that what is going on in a person's mind now is not now is absurd.

 

[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.

So, the success of a thread depends on the amount of replies? The more replies, the more factual it becomes...mmmmmm. I'll try to remember that.

I guess 9-11 was an inside job....smh!

WTC building 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

When did someone say a thread becomes more factual the more replies it has?

I presented an argument in the OP, if you want to challenge it's validity, you need to submit a counter argument. Popping in to say you reject the OP is not an argument.

Your usual "...... because I say so" commandment is hardly an argument.

I don't say so, physics says so.

What physics? Is religious fundamentalist physics a new branch of the other physics?

 

[Boss]

I can tell you why gravity exists but only if you can believe it.

When I say that we can explain how gravity works but we can't explain why it exists, I am speaking of science and physics, not theological opinions. I don't really give two shits what God told you, it means absolutely nothing to me. Your God could tell you that you need to kill 3,000 people by flying planes into buildings and that you'll be rewarded with virgins in heaven.

I have explained the thread OP is not a theological argument for a theological God. I am using God as a generic placeholder for the thing humans have faith in which is greater than self. All Gods require faith, as does our perception of the moment of present time.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

So, the success of a thread depends on the amount of replies? The more replies, the more factual it becomes...mmmmmm. I'll try to remember that.

I guess 9-11 was an inside job....smh!

WTC building 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

When did someone say a thread becomes more factual the more replies it has?

I presented an argument in the OP, if you want to challenge it's validity, you need to submit a counter argument. Popping in to say you reject the OP is not an argument.

Your argument means nothing. The amount of responses mean nothing.

Gawd is time, gawd is love, gawd is this flower I'm holding in my hand, gawd is nature, gawd is vengeance, gawd is mercy, gawd is whatever you create him/her/it to be.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

So, the success of a thread depends on the amount of replies? The more replies, the more factual it becomes...mmmmmm. I'll try to remember that.

I guess 9-11 was an inside job....smh!

WTC building 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

When did someone say a thread becomes more factual the more replies it has?

I presented an argument in the OP, if you want to challenge it's validity, you need to submit a counter argument. Popping in to say you reject the OP is not an argument.

Your usual "...... because I say so" commandment is hardly an argument.

I don't say so, physics says so.

What physics? Is religious fundamentalist physics a new branch of the other physics?

This thread reminds me of some New Age Spirituality, inspired by kooks like Edgar Cayce, where they practice the art of rubbing magic crystals together.

 

[Boss]

A final, parting statement; arguing that what is going on in a person's mind now is not now is absurd.

We've already covered "now" and how it can mean totally different things. Did you not read what I wrote? Look... just bowing up and saying things are "absurd" without offering anything more, is not ever going to pass for debate.

Whatever is in your mind as "now" or the moment of "nowness" or "present time" or whatever way you wish to define the instant we all acknowledge as "the present" ...is something that took time to get there and be processed into a perception by your brain. You cannot have a perception of "now" any other way.

This is not "absurd" at all... it's physics and I am shocked at how many morons don't comprehend it. We cannot observe the moment of present time, we only have a perception which we realize in the past, after the present is gone forever. Nothing can "happen" without time... light has to travel... neurons have to send electric impulses... you cannot perceive it until these things "happen" which requires time... which means time has passed and is no longer the present. This is as simple as it can be explained and anyone with a basic understanding of physics can comprehend.

What is "absurd" is how some of you think all you need to do is balk, reject and ridicule... and that is supposed to mean something to anyone other than yourself. Your opinion that I am being "absurd" in my well-grounded physics argument and $3 will buy you a Starbucks.

 

[Boss]

Your argument means nothing. The amount of responses mean nothing.

Gawd is time, gawd is love, gawd is this flower I'm holding in my hand, gawd is nature, gawd is vengeance, gawd is mercy, gawd is whatever you create him/her/it to be.

Well, Hollie claimed my thread failed, but the measure of any thread is the number of views and replies. I merely pointed out that my thread had not "failed" by established parameters for measuring success of threads on any forum. In contrast, this thread has more replies and views than the combined total of her last 20 threads. That's not about the argument, it's about the success or failure of the thread as a thread.

Now, it just so happens that my argument was bulletproof and no one has been able to refute it. Oh, they have rejected it, refused to try and counter it, attempted to change the subject numerous times, interjected emotive opinions... but the point of the OP still stands irrefutable.

In your final paragraph, all you are stating is that God relies on faith. I have no problem with that. My OP doesn't challenge it or try to establish scientific proof for God. The belief in God certainly requires faith and God is whatever you believe God is. So is the instant of present time.... that's the OP argument. We have a perception of present time, we cannot observe it. We rely on our faith in what we perceive to be reality in the present. Nothing is perceived instantly without time happening... it defies physics.

 

[Hollie]

Your argument means nothing. The amount of responses mean nothing.

Gawd is time, gawd is love, gawd is this flower I'm holding in my hand, gawd is nature, gawd is vengeance, gawd is mercy, gawd is whatever you create him/her/it to be.

Well, Hollie claimed my thread failed, but the measure of any thread is the number of views and replies. I merely pointed out that my thread had not "failed" by established parameters for measuring success of threads on any forum. In contrast, this thread has more replies and views than the combined total of her last 20 threads. That's not about the argument, it's about the success or failure of the thread as a thread.

Now, it just so happens that my argument was bulletproof and no one has been able to refute it. Oh, they have rejected it, refused to try and counter it, attempted to change the subject numerous times, interjected emotive opinions... but the point of the OP still stands irrefutable.

In your final paragraph, all you are stating is that God relies on faith. I have no problem with that. My OP doesn't challenge it or try to establish scientific proof for God. The belief in God certainly requires faith and God is whatever you believe God is. So is the instant of present time.... that's the OP argument. We have a perception of present time, we cannot observe it. We rely on our faith in what we perceive to be reality in the present. Nothing is perceived instantly without time happening... it defies physics.

The thread has failed. This thread like your others has been a vehicle for your proselytizing as a way to promote to your version of some new fangled religion. As a L. Ron Hubbard wannabe, yeah, the thread fails.

Your insistence of some new fangled version of physics as supporting your argument for religious faith being required to perceive the present, well, yeah, that argument is absent support so yeah, that was a failure also.

 

[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.

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.

.

Well... You can ignore physics and presume that what you are perceiving as reality in the present didn't have to arrive in your brain and be processed, but we know that isn't true. No one is rearranging any words or specially constructing an argument, it's all basic physics.

a few posts back I clearly asked if you are stating that physics has observed the Spirit employing a brain to decipher the present - or physics is able to observe a Beings Spirit ?

God... Is Time.

that is the title of your OP - it is an oxymoron if a Spirit is not the same ... moron.

B: I said that humans can't observe the moment of present time.

again - - "humans" refers to their physiology - that is not true of the Spirit. the pursuit of the Everlasting is not the goal of a persons physiology, there is a difference between science and religion.

.