- Jul 5, 2012
- 20,311
- 5,099
- 280
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.
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.