God... Is Time.

[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.

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.

Well no, the thread hasn't failed by any standard we measure threads on forums. The argument presented in the OP has not been refuted and there is really no counter argument. You keep wanting to talk about religion and I am not religious so I can't talk to you about that, except to say the thread is not a religious argument and this isn't a theological discussion. I've not promoted any new religion or "newfangled physics" with anything I've presented in this thread.

If you comprehend that light has to travel and anything that "happens" requires time, then it's clear you can understand that our perception of the present isn't happening in the moment of the present. I don't need newfangled physics, just the regular kind. We rely on faith that the moment of present is as we perceive. Because of physics, it is impossible for us to observe the present.

Faith is faith is faith... there is no special "religious" faith which has it's own rules. To have faith is to believe in something not observable, testable or measurable. It applies to God and it applies to the Present.

 

[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.

.

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.

.

I can't comprehend what you post because you are speaking in incomplete sentences and thoughts which trail off into other ideas or topics. I have no idea what you're talking about most of the time.

I've made no arguments about physics being able to observe spirit. I don't know where you got that but it wasn't my argument and the OP doesn't mention it. I've not claimed there is no difference between science and religion... again, don't know where that came from but it wasn't from me or the OP. So you seem to be asking me questions related to a phantom OP that doesn't exist in reality, where I said all kinds of crazy-ass shit you disagree with... that's all I can figure.

"God... Is Time" is the allegoric title I chose for my OP. I've already explained I am not talking about the Abrahamic God of Moses or any other religious incarnation of God. I'm also not talking about the myriad of various contextual meanings with regard to "Time." More specifically, I am talking about the instant of present time, which we cannot observe as mortal human beings in a physical universe. We rely on faith the present is as we perceive.

 

[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.

Well no, the thread hasn't failed by any standard we measure threads on forums. The argument presented in the OP has not been refuted and there is really no counter argument. You keep wanting to talk about religion and I am not religious so I can't talk to you about that, except to say the thread is not a religious argument and this isn't a theological discussion. I've not promoted any new religion or "newfangled physics" with anything I've presented in this thread.

If you comprehend that light has to travel and anything that "happens" requires time, then it's clear you can understand that our perception of the present isn't happening in the moment of the present. I don't need newfangled physics, just the regular kind. We rely on faith that the moment of present is as we perceive. Because of physics, it is impossible for us to observe the present.

Faith is faith is faith... there is no special "religious" faith which has it's own rules. To have faith is to believe in something not observable, testable or measurable. It applies to God and it applies to the Present.

What is it that you think hasn't been refuted?

You've offered nothing but "you have to have faith, you have to believe in god" as a means to present an argument you claim is supported by physics. That's a pointless argument because there are any number of gawds to believe in and you have not identified which of the gawds we must believe as a precondition to accepting your claims.

Absent religious belief in one or more gawds, we must believe in gawds which you have yet to establish and some new fangled physics you're unable to define. This thread is another bust, just as your earlier threads were.

You seem not to understand that these threads you open all have a similar theme: they all require a predefined belief in a version of gawds that are unique to your new fangled religion and you never make a defendable case for those gawds.

 

[BreezeWood]

I've made no arguments about physics being able to observe spirit.

.
speaking of incomplete sentences ...

that is my argument, the Spirit of any being is what resides in the present time and as most would believe is not decipherable by physics.

does the present time matter to a heart rate - no. we can agree to that.

you have not defined your meaning - God ... is Time

whatever that means, it must also mean Life (Spirit) is time also as they are inseparable, God = Life = Present Time.

.

 

[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.

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.

Well no, the thread hasn't failed by any standard we measure threads on forums. The argument presented in the OP has not been refuted and there is really no counter argument. You keep wanting to talk about religion and I am not religious so I can't talk to you about that, except to say the thread is not a religious argument and this isn't a theological discussion. I've not promoted any new religion or "newfangled physics" with anything I've presented in this thread.

If you comprehend that light has to travel and anything that "happens" requires time, then it's clear you can understand that our perception of the present isn't happening in the moment of the present. I don't need newfangled physics, just the regular kind. We rely on faith that the moment of present is as we perceive. Because of physics, it is impossible for us to observe the present.

Faith is faith is faith... there is no special "religious" faith which has it's own rules. To have faith is to believe in something not observable, testable or measurable. It applies to God and it applies to the Present.

What is it that you think hasn't been refuted?

You've offered nothing but "you have to have faith, you have to believe in god" as a means to present an argument you claim is supported by physics. That's a pointless argument because there are any number of gawds to believe in and you have not identified which of the gawds we must believe as a precondition to accepting your claims.

Absent religious belief in one or more gawds, we must believe in gawds which you have yet to establish and some new fangled physics you're unable to define. This thread is another bust, just as your earlier threads were.

You seem not to understand that these threads you open all have a similar theme: they all require a predefined belief in a version of gawds that are unique to your new fangled religion and you never make a defendable case for those gawds.

What hasn't been refuted is that humans cannot observe the present. I don't know why you continue to claim I am trying to use some "newfangled physics" here. Things like the speed of light are not exactly "new age" sweetie.

You've offered nothing but "you have to have faith, you have to believe in god" as a means to...

I have a problem with you misquoting me and attributing things to me that I never said. Where did I state that you have to believe in anything? Even in my "other threads" which have nothing to do with this thread, I have never said you have to believe in anything.

Science operates on known principles of physics. People who understand physics are aware that things cannot "happen" without time. It's not dependent upon whether you believe that or not, it's a principle of physics. You are perfectly free to denounce belief in physics and dance around naked in the street like an angry chicken.

Perceptions happen, thus take time to happen, which means perceptions are not happening in the instant of present time. We cannot observe the instant of present time. In order to observe the instant of present time, we'd have to defy physics. We only have perception of something that already happened and is forever in the past.

 

[Boss]

I've made no arguments about physics being able to observe spirit.

.
speaking of incomplete sentences ...

that is my argument, the Spirit of any being is what resides in the present time and as most would believe is not decipherable by physics.

does the present time matter to a heart rate - no. we can agree to that.

you have not defined your meaning - God ... is Time

whatever that means, it must also mean Life (Spirit) is time also as they are inseparable, God = Life = Present Time.

.

1) My sentence is complete.

2) Never said spirits cannot reside in the present, or that physical things don't reside in the present. Physics prohibits physical beings from observing the moment of present time.

3) I've explained (several times) that my thread title is intentionally allegoric. In those explanations I presented my definitions of both God and Time.

4) Heart rates do not have human emotions so nothing "matters" to a heart rate.

5) God = Life = Present Time is not a true statement. God > Everything.

 

[Muslim75]

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?

It is inappropriate and blasphemous to call God "time". God is, by the way, above any form of humanness. Any given human being is born, passes through childhood, youth, adulthood and old age. At the time he reaches old age he is a completely different human being than the one he was at age 4. God has changed him. Hence in Islam, we say that "God is the Time", not "God is Time".

 

[Boss]

It is inappropriate and blasphemous to call God "time". God is, by the way, above any form of humanness. Any given human being is born, passes through childhood, youth, adulthood and old age. At the time he reaches old age he is a completely different human being than the one he was at age 4. God has changed him. Hence in Islam, we say that "God is the Time", not "God is Time".

With all due respect to your personal religious beliefs, I am not here to proselytize for any religious belief. The OP examines the human attribute of faith... belief in what is unobserved. We have a perception of what "present time" appears to be, that is all. We can't confirm it because we can't physically observe the moment of present time. Our perception is a byproduct of time which already passed and is no longer in the present.

We're all physical human beings, bound by the laws of physical nature. This is the limitation which keeps us from ever observing the moment of present time. We can only have faith that it exists, it cannot be observed directly, we rely only on our perception of the evidence. The same is true for God.

What God IS or what God does... that's a different topic. I've made no claims, I boast of no inside knowledge. As a devout Spiritualist, I believe in a power greater than self and connect with it regularly. That power is MY God. I have enough knowledge to understand this is essentially the basis for any incarnation of God, regardless of attached religious dogma. But for the sake of the OP argument, the definition of God is inconsequential. Faith is required to believe in God, just as faith is required to believe the present exists as we perceive it to be.

 

[theword]

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.

I know you don't give two shits what God told me. I didn't think you would. However, I do know how he created everything and that includes what scientists think they understand.

 

[theword]

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.

: :

I don't who "physics" is or ever heard him speak.

 

[Yarddog]

Time does not exist

How can so called God be time

we worms crawling here on Earth can not understand our Infinite Eternal Source FATHER

God may not be Time per se, but I think its part of the equation if there is one, you may also throw in Origin.

I think i would put origin in there because there are pieces of matter floating around space through time,

Time, origin, intent? there may be something besides the vastness of space that we cant even perceive,

somehow they threw it all together though and got an espresso machine out of it , so maybe there is intelligent
design .......

 

[Yarddog]

Time does not exist

How can so called God be time

we worms crawling here on Earth can not understand our Infinite Eternal Source FATHER

We can't observe Time in the present or future, our only perception of Time is time passed. We have faith that present time existed because we have evidence of past time. We cannot prove present time existed or that it currently exists. Anything we perceive has already happened and is in the past.

If we cannot physically observe it, does it really exist?

I think if time did not exist, then matter could not exist. matter would be the proof that time exists. then again without matter, maybe time would not exist as well

 

[Boss]

I think if time did not exist, then matter could not exist. matter would be the proof that time exists. then again without matter, maybe time would not exist as well

Wouldn't matter what "existed" without time, it would be impossible to perceive it. This is not like closing your eyes and holding your breath, pretending time doesn't exist. Literally nothing would/could be relevant without time.

 

[Boss]

Time does not exist

How can so called God be time

we worms crawling here on Earth can not understand our Infinite Eternal Source FATHER

God may not be Time per se, but I think its part of the equation if there is one, you may also throw in Origin.

I think i would put origin in there because there are pieces of matter floating around space through time,

Time, origin, intent? there may be something besides the vastness of space that we cant even perceive,

somehow they threw it all together though and got an espresso machine out of it , so maybe there is intelligent
design .......

Time is the only thing that really matters to physical beings. Matter can exist, not exist or be dark matter... likewise with gravity, energy and light. However, none of them can "exist" in any fundamental way without time.

This is not an argument regarding origin or intent. Both are great topics, I have nothing against them but this thread is centered on faith and physics. Most people who reject God will run to Science and claim they can't have faith in something they can't observe, test and measure. However, every mortal human being for all of creation does this every second of every day and always has. We are unable to observe the moment of present time. We assume it is happening because we have a perception of it happening, which comes to us after the fact, in the past. We depend on sheer faith that "the present" is as we perceive it to be... because we can't physically observe it directly.

 

[edthecynic]

We cannot observe the present, we can only have a perception and faith in that perception.

So if you break your leg skiing, you can only know by faith that at some present time in the past you broke your leg.

 

[Boss]

We cannot observe the present, we can only have a perception and faith in that perception.

So if you break your leg skiing, you can only know by faith that at some present time in the past you broke your leg.

If you break your leg, the moment you realize you've broken your leg is not the present. It can't be because of physics. Time has to happen for you to have perception or have any realization whatsoever. You can make cuckoo faces at that if you like, it's basic physics.

What's really sad is this is coming from a person with an observatory as his avatar. You'd think someone like that would realize the concept of physics... light you perceive from distant stars is coming to you from the past... you are literally observing the star as it appeared hundreds of years ago... in order to see what the star looks like in the present, you'll need to live hundreds of years.

Everything you have perception of took time to happen, therefore your perception cannot be in the present time. If you look at yourself in the mirror, that is a reflection of how you appeared in the past, just a fraction of a second ago. Light had to travel, physics had to happen, then you could perceive something.

 

[Boss]

Here's an astrological event you're probably familiar with, Eddy. It shows a bunch of science geeks sitting around a monitor watching the comet Shoemaker-Levy crash into Jupiter. They consider themselves watching it as it happened. This was how the news reported it and science journals accounted it... but what they are viewing had already happened some 23 minutes before. It was impossible for them to view the event in real time because light had to travel, signals had to be processed, physics had to happen. Even if they had been watching the event from a space ship orbiting Jupiter, light still had to travel, physics still had to happen. It wouldn't have taken 23 minutes, it would have been much quicker but it's impossible for anyone to have observed it happen in the present time.

As mortal human beings living in a physical universe, we are bound and limited by physics. For anything to "happen" takes time, thus the present time is elusive. We can only have a perception of present which arrives in our brains after it has already happened and is forever in the past. I'm not sure why you brain is not absorbing this basic physical fact... maybe your ego can't handle being mortal? Perhaps it exposes the ignorance of you believing yourself to be your own God? Whatever is the case, it seems to be causing you to get surly and rude toward me.

 

[edthecynic]

We cannot observe the present, we can only have a perception and faith in that perception.

So if you break your leg skiing, you can only know by faith that at some present time in the past you broke your leg.

If you break your leg, the moment you realize you've broken your leg is not the present. It can't be because of physics. Time has to happen for you to have perception or have any realization whatsoever. You can make cuckoo faces at that if you like, it's basic physics.

What's really sad is this is coming from a person with an observatory as his avatar. You'd think someone like that would realize the concept of physics... light you perceive from distant stars is coming to you from the past... you are literally observing the star as it appeared hundreds of years ago... in order to see what the star looks like in the present, you'll need to live hundreds of years.

Everything you have perception of took time to happen, therefore your perception cannot be in the present time. If you look at yourself in the mirror, that is a reflection of how you appeared in the past, just a fraction of a second ago. Light had to travel, physics had to happen, then you could perceive something.

All that has nothing to do with your stupid claim that faith is required to know that there was a present time when you broke your leg because you did not perceive it the instant it happened. You may still be unconscious from your fall, but that does not change the fact that at some present time in the past you fell and broke your leg. That is the physics of reality and it takes no faith to know that there was a present time when you broke your leg.

 

[edthecynic]

Here's an astrological event you're probably familiar with, Eddy. It shows a bunch of science geeks sitting around a monitor watching the comet Shoemaker-Levy crash into Jupiter. They consider themselves watching it as it happened. This was how the news reported it and science journals accounted it... but what they are viewing had already happened some 23 minutes before. It was impossible for them to view the event in real time because light had to travel, signals had to be processed, physics had to happen. Even if they had been watching the event from a space ship orbiting Jupiter, light still had to travel, physics still had to happen. It wouldn't have taken 23 minutes, it would have been much quicker but it's impossible for anyone to have observed it happen in the present time.

As mortal human beings living in a physical universe, we are bound and limited by physics. For anything to "happen" takes time, thus the present time is elusive. We can only have a perception of present which arrives in our brains after it has already happened and is forever in the past. I'm not sure why you brain is not absorbing this basic physical fact... maybe your ego can't handle being mortal? Perhaps it exposes the ignorance of you believing yourself to be your own God? Whatever is the case, it seems to be causing you to get surly and rude toward me.

Again another moronic example that has nothing to do with faith. There was a present time when the comet crashed even if no one perceived it.

 

[Chalgoum]

The Last News ....


Planes fly within walking distance of the Earth Find Yourself