God... Is Time.

"Is" doesn't mean "equal."
It sure does in physics.

1+1 IS an even number. That statement is true but "is" doesn't mean "equal" because there are a LOT of even numbers that 1+1 are not.

No, shithead... "IS" can mean other things even in physics. (forgetting the fact that the title of my thread is NOT presented as a physics formula.)
Nope, "is" ALWAYS means the equal sign.

Translating Word Problems Keywords

The hardest thing about doing word problems is taking the English words and translating them into mathematics. Usually, once you get the math equation, you're fine; the actual math involved is often fairly simple. But figuring out the actual equation can seem nearly impossible. What follows is a list of hints and helps.

Equals

is, are, was, were, will be
gives, yields
sold for

This should be nominated for the stupidest argument ever attempted in USMB history. The fucking word "IS" can mean a lot of things in context. It is one of the oldest words. It is the 3rd person singular present indicative of "be" and "be" means "present."

Because something is present doesn't mean something else can't also be present.

What you are foolishly and ignorantly doing is trying to point to "equal" and say it means the same thing as "is" and that has not been argued by me or anyone. Equal DOES mean IS, but IS doesn't mean EQUAL.
 
"Is" doesn't mean "equal."
It sure does in physics.

1+1 IS an even number. That statement is true but "is" doesn't mean "equal" because there are a LOT of even numbers that 1+1 are not.

No, shithead... "IS" can mean other things even in physics. (forgetting the fact that the title of my thread is NOT presented as a physics formula.)
Nope, "is" ALWAYS means the equal sign.

Translating Word Problems Keywords

The hardest thing about doing word problems is taking the English words and translating them into mathematics. Usually, once you get the math equation, you're fine; the actual math involved is often fairly simple. But figuring out the actual equation can seem nearly impossible. What follows is a list of hints and helps.

Equals

is, are, was, were, will be
gives, yields
sold for
then if 1 is/equals "a number" and 2 is/equals "a number", then 1 is/equals 2...........
Obviously, you flunked your arithmetic lessons at the Falwell Madrassah.

You and Eddy are running neck-and-neck as the stupidest posters on USMB with the past couple of arguments you've tried to present.
 
What we're seeing here is a pattern developing. It has gone on for days now and it will go on for many more days. Several people cannot argue on the merits of the subject so they have decided to destroy the thread by flooding it with minutiae like the meaning of "IS" for example. In doing this, they distract everyone from the topic and parade around like little rodeo clowns hooping and hollering for attention.

I am going to make the choice to ignore trolls from here on out. I've presented my arguments and they have not been refuted. I don't have time or patience to sit here and play silly semantics games with morons. If that's your cup of tea, be my guest, have at it! I'm signing off until someone posts something of relevance to the topic.
 
It sure does in physics.

1+1 IS an even number. That statement is true but "is" doesn't mean "equal" because there are a LOT of even numbers that 1+1 are not.

No, shithead... "IS" can mean other things even in physics. (forgetting the fact that the title of my thread is NOT presented as a physics formula.)
Nope, "is" ALWAYS means the equal sign.

Translating Word Problems Keywords

The hardest thing about doing word problems is taking the English words and translating them into mathematics. Usually, once you get the math equation, you're fine; the actual math involved is often fairly simple. But figuring out the actual equation can seem nearly impossible. What follows is a list of hints and helps.

Equals

is, are, was, were, will be
gives, yields
sold for
then if 1 is/equals "a number" and 2 is/equals "a number", then 1 is/equals 2...........
Obviously, you flunked your arithmetic lessons at the Falwell Madrassah.

You and Eddy are running neck-and-neck as the stupidest posters on USMB with the past couple of arguments you've tried to present.

It's a shame that your arguments simply resolve to proselytizing for your gawds. For all your failed attempts to defend gawds=time, you're left to kick and stomp your feet like a child who has been scolded.
 
What we're seeing here is a pattern developing. It has gone on for days now and it will go on for many more days. Several people cannot argue on the merits of the subject so they have decided to destroy the thread by flooding it with minutiae like the meaning of "IS" for example. In doing this, they distract everyone from the topic and parade around like little rodeo clowns hooping and hollering for attention.

I am going to make the choice to ignore trolls from here on out. I've presented my arguments and they have not been refuted. I don't have time or patience to sit here and play silly semantics games with morons. If that's your cup of tea, be my guest, have at it! I'm signing off until someone posts something of relevance to the topic.

As thin and as weak as your attempt at argument has been, there's not much to refute. Gawds=time is not an argument that can be taken seriously. You're just as dishonest as a summer day is long with your carelessly and pointlessly slathering on about your gawds while stumbling over your own coments from post to post.

The easiest way to refute your arguments is to let you pontificate from post to post wherein you refute your earlier comments and then pontificate for several paragraphs wherein you laughably mismanage terms and conditions in hopelessly inept attempts to grab the boat anchor of your failed stuttering and mumbling.
 
You can't prove anything about the present because you can't observe it. In your example, you have the perception that a ball exists in a certain time and place and you anticipate the arrival due to physics in order to perceive making contact with a bat. This is your perception of reality in present time, but what you can never do is observe the actual present to confirm your perception.
Wrong as usual. The ball striking the bat is the confirmation.

No it's not because you can't observe it in the present. No one is questioning you have a perception of a bat hitting a ball. All of it is happening in the past not the present. In order to confirm your perception matches you need to observe the present but you can't observe it... physics has to happen and physics takes time.
That is pure hog wash. You know you hit the ball, and you know you are not playing football.

What IS the argument you think we're having? That we have perceptions? That we know things? That we can observe physical phenomenon? None of this is the argument but it keeps seeming like that is what you think. I've never said we can't perceive the present or the present doesn't exist, isn't real, can't be believed in... none of this is MY argument.

Our perceptions are not the issue here. We can perceive all kinds of things. We can have the perception that God exists. We can even perceive that WE are God, or more important than God. If Science has ever proved anything it should be that we ought not trust our perceptions. Just because it appears the universe revolves around Earth, doesn't mean it's true.

The OP argues that we cannot observe the point of present time. It's like God, it is non-observable and depends completely on our faith. The fact remains, you have not overcome the OP argument based on physics and you can't because it's a true argument. For you to observe anything, time and physics MUST happen.... you are a being bound by a physical universe and the laws which govern it. Unless you find a way to defy physics the OP argument will be true. So far, none of you have presented something to defy physics but I am still patiently waiting. I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but you never know! :dunno:

Eddy boy, I don't often quote my own posts but I felt sorry for you here. This seems to be where your train departed the tracks most recently in an attempt to derail the thread. Now.... you and Hollie can scratch like cats in a litter box to try and cover this post up in a mountain of your pointless blather, but the argument remains and you've not addressed it.
 
You can't prove anything about the present because you can't observe it. In your example, you have the perception that a ball exists in a certain time and place and you anticipate the arrival due to physics in order to perceive making contact with a bat. This is your perception of reality in present time, but what you can never do is observe the actual present to confirm your perception.
Wrong as usual. The ball striking the bat is the confirmation.

No it's not because you can't observe it in the present. No one is questioning you have a perception of a bat hitting a ball. All of it is happening in the past not the present. In order to confirm your perception matches you need to observe the present but you can't observe it... physics has to happen and physics takes time.
That is pure hog wash. You know you hit the ball, and you know you are not playing football.

What IS the argument you think we're having? That we have perceptions? That we know things? That we can observe physical phenomenon? None of this is the argument but it keeps seeming like that is what you think. I've never said we can't perceive the present or the present doesn't exist, isn't real, can't be believed in... none of this is MY argument.

Our perceptions are not the issue here. We can perceive all kinds of things. We can have the perception that God exists. We can even perceive that WE are God, or more important than God. If Science has ever proved anything it should be that we ought not trust our perceptions. Just because it appears the universe revolves around Earth, doesn't mean it's true.

The OP argues that we cannot observe the point of present time. It's like God, it is non-observable and depends completely on our faith. The fact remains, you have not overcome the OP argument based on physics and you can't because it's a true argument. For you to observe anything, time and physics MUST happen.... you are a being bound by a physical universe and the laws which govern it. Unless you find a way to defy physics the OP argument will be true. So far, none of you have presented something to defy physics but I am still patiently waiting. I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but you never know! :dunno:

Eddy boy, I don't often quote my own posts but I felt sorry for you here. This seems to be where your train departed the tracks most recently in an attempt to derail the thread. Now.... you and Hollie can scratch like cats in a litter box to try and cover this post up in a mountain of your pointless blather, but the argument remains and you've not addressed it.
You struck out with that pontification long ago. Repeating it does not make it any less meaningless.
 
This seems to be where (the) train departed the tracks ...
God... Is Time.

no, as remote and unsupported as the above title remains, the train left the track when bossy lost touch with reality ... and remains so.

and might consider why for its own sake then just take it like a man.

.
 
You struck out with that pontification long ago. Repeating it does not make it any less meaningless.

The problem here is, you are apparently too much of a simple-headed moron to explain how my argument struck out or how it was pontificating and not physics. Because we don't see where you've made that case or anyone else for that matter.

This is the old familiar Alinsky tactic... continually infer the argument was defeated... way back, many pages ago... no point in searching through the thousands of meaningless posts, these morons defeated my argument and we should just all accept that as the truth. They keep claiming it, so it MUST be true, right?

Physics is not debatable, it is not an opinion. Physics takes time to happen. Nothing in the principles of physics, no physical law or formula can ever function without time. It is essential for physics to work. We cannot observe things or have perception of them without time. As long as this remains true, we cannot observe the point of present time. We have to wait for physics and time to happen, meaning we cannot be in the present anymore. We have a perception and we have a faith in our perception. That's ALL we have, all we'll ever have, unless we find a way to defy physics.

Now, it makes no difference how many Alinskyites want to flood the thread and play their radical games, this point stands unchallenged and irrefutable. Being a troll won't change it, pretending the argument failed won't change it, calling me names and insulting my mother won't change it. So put on your grown-up pants and deal with it.
 
Extrapolating Elysium

What is really the difference between experience and memory?

When something 'happens,' we cite it as perception/experience, but when we want to make analogies or metaphors of past perceptions/experiences, we retrieve memories and reference our 'personalized' models of what actually happened.

When we think that perception is a priority, time is measured in terms of progress (i.e., Black Friday), but when we think of memory as a priority, time is measured in terms of patterns (i.e., Friday the 13th).

Why do witches/warlocks ascribe avatars of mysticism (i.e., Father Time) to conceptualizations of time measurement, immortality, and/or eternity? Is there a connection between nature/voodoo and sensitivity?

The American comic book avatar Scarlet Witch (Marvel Comics) is a super-female with extraordinary powers and represents modern-era fascination with gender/species empowerment and perception enhancement (also magic).

If there is an all-knowing and omnipotent Creator (God), and He/She has control or wisdom in matters of time/eternity, why do we make dialogue-rich characters and even alternative religion icons (i.e., Scarlet Witch, Father Time, etc.) to willfully debate about 'power jargon'?



:afro:

Father Time


aeon.jpg
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top