God... Is Time.

[Boss]

we don't know how much future time remains, or even if there is any. This requires faith.

I predict with certainty and not by faith that there will be a tomorrow even if I am not here to witness it. You have subconsciously admitted it.

You can predict whatever you like. You can't prove.

Your post following my previous post is proof.

LOL... The past? What does that have to do with tomorrow?

 

[edthecynic]

We know at present that there is a future even if we are not certain of how long that future is.

No we don't. We can't even verify the present exists. We only have evidence of time which has passed.

Wrong!
We have proof of an expanding universe and therefore proof of future time of indeterminate length.
For you to claim there is no future you must prove that the present movement of the universe will stop immediately.

 

[edthecynic]

we don't know how much future time remains, or even if there is any. This requires faith.

I predict with certainty and not by faith that there will be a tomorrow even if I am not here to witness it. You have subconsciously admitted it.

You can predict whatever you like. You can't prove.

Your post following my previous post is proof.

LOL... The past? What does that have to do with tomorrow?

Your past post was the future to my previous post.
You lose your argument with each future post!

 

[Boss]

We know at present that there is a future even if we are not certain of how long that future is.

No we don't. We can't even verify the present exists. We only have evidence of time which has passed.

Wrong!
We have proof of an expanding universe and therefore proof of future time of indeterminate length.
For you to claim there is no future you must prove that the present movement of the universe will stop immediately.

We have no "proof" of ANYTHING that we cannot observe, test, measure or evaluate! You can't prove the universe even exists in the present. You can predict the universe exists in the present and will continue to exist into the future, you just can't prove this. I welcome you to try and present something, but really... there's not anything you can present. The laws of physics defy you.

 

[edthecynic]

The laws of physics defy you.

You lie, as always.

 

[jon_berzerk]

What is your evidence future exists?

I'll do a Bossy:

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

The past offers the presence of a future merely by referring to is as "past."

Wow.

This is nonsense. The past does not offer any presence of present or future. It is the past.

the past present and future all exist together

What is your evidence future exists?
How can you confirm the present exists if you cannot observe it?

The past exists as memories, we label them as days, weeks, years, decades, centuries... the evidence for this is reality of a physical nature. So time is certainly passing and we have evidence time is passing. We simply can't see the moment of present time and we don't know how much future time remains, or even if there is any. This requires faith.

try out a telescope some time

 

[amrchaos]

I've said this numerous of times(pun intended)

There are definitions for "God" that not only can't be disproven, but are scientifically provable.

Time is a measurement. Measuring time, rates of change, age of objects tends to justify the existence of time in a science.

(this kind of remind me of someone that God is love and energy. Energy is a physical concept. Love is an emotional state of mind that is expressed in action but difficult to prove in others, but is knowable if you experienced it.)

The real question here is-do you accept this definition for God?

Many non-theistic definitions of God does not need the title of "God" since their importance are obvious by noticing them as they are(if they exist). To me, calling these things 'God' tends to obfuscate their importance to us.

Time, Energy, Love are important to our reality and perception of reality--but calling any of these things "God" is unnecessary.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

What is physical reality? The perception of nature with our eyes and ears only gives us concepts that we sort of feel personally. That is not good enough. We have to more carefully observe nature.

But everything we can observe is in the past. Our perception of the present is actually the very most recent past. This is because of the speed of light. We look into the sky and see a star but we don't know if that star exists in the present, even though we see it in what we perceive as the present. We are seeing the light from thousands of years ago, it has taken that long to reach our eyes for us to observe. The star may not exist any longer, we don't know. Likewise, if you look at your reflection in the mirror, that was you a nano-second ago, not in the present. You cannot prove you exist in the present.

I'll give ya props for your willingness to engage and respond to seemingly every poster.

 

[Wuwei]

There is no logical leap and I'm not attempting to prove something here. This is a philosophical thread to discuss an idea and thoughts. The point is to demonstrate that our spiritual awareness of God is evidenced through the same faith we have in Time.

We are not spiritually aware of unicorns as far as I know. I guess if unicorns had always inspired man to be more than he can be, we might be discussing them here. We are also not discussing Jesus or Moses or The Bible in general. Only a conceptual God which can basically be the same as Time. Something we are aware of even without the ability to perceive it directly or physically prove it exists.

That's fair enough. A lot of people want to relate God intimately with some aspect of physics, such as the cause of the big bang. One friend relates God as behind every physical interaction or movement of matter - similar in one sense to your point.

That is fine, but it leaves me with a sort of a "so what". The physical aspects of the universe are what they are and labeling some or all of them as God doesn't add much to the philosophy.

What adds to the philosophy is that same entity is something that you pray to, and something that is personally interested in you. There is no reason to make that leap, and you seem not to be doing that. So that begs the question, what is the significance of your philosophy.

 

[Wuwei]

I've said this numerous of times(pun intended)

There are definitions for "God" that not only can't be disproven, but are scientifically provable.

Time is a measurement. Measuring time, rates of change, age of objects tends to justify the existence of time in a science.

(this kind of remind me of someone that God is love and energy. Energy is a physical concept. Love is an emotional state of mind that is expressed in action but difficult to prove in others, but is knowable if you experienced it.)

The real question here is-do you accept this definition for God?

Many non-theistic definitions of God does not need the title of "God" since their importance are obvious by noticing them as they are(if they exist). To me, calling these things 'God' tends to obfuscate their importance to us.

Time, Energy, Love are important to our reality and perception of reality--but calling any of these things "God" is unnecessary.

I didn't see your post before I posted. It's is interesting that we said pretty much the same thing..

 

[BreezeWood]

What adds to the philosophy is that same entity is something that you pray to, and something that is personally interested in you. There is no reason to make that leap, and you seem not to be doing that. So that begs the question, what is the significance of your philosophy.

.
in the case of the OP - " The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. " - is a resignation to a personal goal of self gratification.

.

 

[Boss]

The past offers the presence of a future merely by referring to is as "past."

Wow.

This is nonsense. The past does not offer any presence of present or future. It is the past.

the past present and future all exist together

What is your evidence future exists?
How can you confirm the present exists if you cannot observe it?

The past exists as memories, we label them as days, weeks, years, decades, centuries... the evidence for this is reality of a physical nature. So time is certainly passing and we have evidence time is passing. We simply can't see the moment of present time and we don't know how much future time remains, or even if there is any. This requires faith.

try out a telescope some time

A telescope? So I can see further into the past?

 

[Boss]

What adds to the philosophy is that same entity is something that you pray to, and something that is personally interested in you. There is no reason to make that leap, and you seem not to be doing that. So that begs the question, what is the significance of your philosophy.

.
in the case of the OP - " The moment of the present is undetectable to mortal human beings. " - is a resignation to a personal goal of self gratification.

.

No, it's not a resignation to anything except the facts of physics. We cannot perceive the present, therefore we do not observe the present and cannot prove it exists. We have faith it exists because of the evidence left behind.

 

[Boss]

I've said this numerous of times(pun intended)

There are definitions for "God" that not only can't be disproven, but are scientifically provable.

Time is a measurement. Measuring time, rates of change, age of objects tends to justify the existence of time in a science.

(this kind of remind me of someone that God is love and energy. Energy is a physical concept. Love is an emotional state of mind that is expressed in action but difficult to prove in others, but is knowable if you experienced it.)

The real question here is-do you accept this definition for God?

Many non-theistic definitions of God does not need the title of "God" since their importance are obvious by noticing them as they are(if they exist). To me, calling these things 'God' tends to obfuscate their importance to us.

Time, Energy, Love are important to our reality and perception of reality--but calling any of these things "God" is unnecessary.

"God" is a harmless little three-letter word, it won't hurt you. You see, what has happened here is a sort of brainwashing. The mere mention of the word "God" sets people off, They begin to get defensive and unreasonable. It's just a word.

You mentioned energy and love but neither can exist without Time. Ultimately, everything in our reality depends on Time. The thing about Time is, we are only able to observe the after effect of Time. It is physically impossible for us to observe the present. So... either the present doesn't exist or it's something we can't directly confirm with physical evidence. We have faith based on the evidence of our perceptions of the past.

Imagine you are driving a car down the road but you can only see out the back window. Looking back on where you have been, you can perceive that you're traveling down the road. You don't know where you are at on the road until you see the road you just traveled across disappearing behind you. We don't know where we are or where we're going, only where we've been.

 

[edthecynic]

We cannot perceive the present, therefore we do not observe the present and cannot prove it exists. We have faith it exists because of the evidence left behind.

The only faith you have is that you can lie about anything.

 

[edthecynic]

I've said this numerous of times(pun intended)

There are definitions for "God" that not only can't be disproven, but are scientifically provable.

Time is a measurement. Measuring time, rates of change, age of objects tends to justify the existence of time in a science.

(this kind of remind me of someone that God is love and energy. Energy is a physical concept. Love is an emotional state of mind that is expressed in action but difficult to prove in others, but is knowable if you experienced it.)

The real question here is-do you accept this definition for God?

Many non-theistic definitions of God does not need the title of "God" since their importance are obvious by noticing them as they are(if they exist). To me, calling these things 'God' tends to obfuscate their importance to us.

Time, Energy, Love are important to our reality and perception of reality--but calling any of these things "God" is unnecessary.

"God" is a harmless little three-letter word, it won't hurt you. You see, what has happened here is a sort of brainwashing. The mere mention of the word "God" sets people off, They begin to get defensive and unreasonable. It's just a word.

You mentioned energy and love but neither can exist without Time. Ultimately, everything in our reality depends on Time. The thing about Time is, we are only able to observe the after effect of Time. It is physically impossible for us to observe the present. So... either the present doesn't exist or it's something we can't directly confirm with physical evidence. We have faith based on the evidence of our perceptions of the past.

Imagine you are driving a car down the road but you can only see out the back window. Looking back on where you have been, you can perceive that you're traveling down the road. You don't know where you are at on the road until you see the road you just traveled across disappearing behind you. We don't know where we are or where we're going, only where we've been.

It is only YOU who has no experience of the present. YOU have convinced yourself that everyone is as blind as you.

 

[Boss]

The only faith you have is that you can lie about anything.

Your statement makes no sense.

It is only YOU who has no experience of the present. YOU have convinced yourself that everyone is as blind as you.

No, physics is apparently not your strong suit. Anything you experience through your five senses has already happened. You are experiencing the after effect. Unless you are God and you can defy physics, this is the case. Now, I realize that many of you Atheist types see yourselves as God, but really... you can't defy physics in order to win this argument.

 

[there4eyeM]

How can anyone seriously state that what we are experiencing is in the past? At the most, we might argue that the information being processed comes from the past, but that would be essentially meaningless.

 

[edthecynic]

No, physics is apparently not your strong suit.

Says the idiot who claims a foot depends on time.

Distance and motion are meaningless without time.