God... Is Time.

[edthecynic]

Anything you experience through your five senses has already happened.

In the PRESENT.

 

[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

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

or the future

funny how motion slices the present

one persons past may be another persons future

 

[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.

.

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.

.

No, it's not a resignation ... to anything except the facts of physics

yes, it is a resignation on your part, the Admission to the Everlasting, accomplishing the " present " through the Apex of Knowledge available to all beings willing to accept the challenge -

you simply have given up ... using the excuse of Physics, science and a preference for a cushioned existence.


and you refer to yourself as a Spiritualist .... ???

.

 

[Boss]

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.

Well it's simply physics. You understand light travels, right? So when you "see" something, that is something that existed in the past. The light has reflected off of it and travels to your eye, then your eye sends a signal to your brain and you realize it. By the time all of that happens, whatever you are seeing is in the past. The time has already moved forward and what you are seeing is a reflection from the past.

The same holds true with your other senses as well, it takes time for anything you sense to travel to your brain and register as an experience. It's not physically possible for you to "see" the present or sense the present in any way. In order to believe the present exists, it requires faith. Not much, because your evidence from time passed is very fresh and confirms that a present did exist just a fraction of a fraction of a second ago. Still, since you cannot actually observe it, you can't prove it.... like God.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Well it's simply physics. You understand light travels, right? So when you "see" something, that is something that existed in the past.

No, it is simple sophistry!

No that is something that exists in the PRESENT. Time may pass by the time the present registers in your brain, but the event still happened in the present. There can be no past without a present first, therefore the past is proof of the existence of a present. Your response after this post is proof of a future.

 

[Boss]

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.

Well it's simply physics. You understand light travels, right? So when you "see" something, that is something that existed in the past.

No, it is simple sophistry!

No that is something that exists in the PRESENT. Time may pass by the time the present registers in your brain, but the event still happened in the present. There can be no past without a present first, therefore the past is proof of the existence of a present. Your response after this post is proof of a future.

No, it is simple sophistry!

Funny name for Physics.

No that is something that exists in the PRESENT.

I hear you saying it, I don't see you proving it.

Time may pass by the time the present registers in your brain, but the event still happened in the present.

How do you know if we can't observe the present? I admit, our perception does suggest a present existed and the result is now the past. But if we cannot observe the present, we can't scientifically examine it to test and evaluate. We rely on faith in the evidence that our perception, which is of the past, confirms a present.

There can be no past without a present first, therefore the past is proof of the existence of a present.

Okay, so when I say there can be no life or universe without a Creator first, therefore life and the universe is proof of the existence of a Creator... How is that any different?

It's physically impossible for humans to perceive the present. The past may be "evidence" there was a present at one time and now it is passed, but you can't observe or evaluate the present to prove it. You must have faith that your "evidence" is valid proof.

I'm not arguing that it's not, just saying you can't prove it and you must have faith... like God.

 

[Boss]

Your response after this post is proof of a future.

Wow... Look at me, I am in the future! Except, no... I'm NOT! This response is in the past, just like your post was in the past before you could post it. This is easy because humans can only perceive the past.

 

[edthecynic]

Your response after this post is proof of a future.

Wow... Look at me, I am in the future! Except, no... I'm NOT! This response is in the past, just like your post was in the past before you could post it. This is easy because humans can only perceive the past.

Thank you for proving the existence of the future.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Well it's simply physics. You understand light travels, right? So when you "see" something, that is something that existed in the past.

No, it is simple sophistry!

No that is something that exists in the PRESENT. Time may pass by the time the present registers in your brain, but the event still happened in the present. There can be no past without a present first, therefore the past is proof of the existence of a present. Your response after this post is proof of a future.

No, it is simple sophistry!

Funny name for Physics.

Nothing you post is even remotely related to physics.

Physics to date has not reconciled Relative time with Quantum time. Physics has made no progress in uncovering the nature of time itself or why it seems different (both perceptually and in the equations of quantum mechanics) than the three dimensions of space, which is one of the greatest unknowns in physics.

Quantum Time Exactly What Is Time

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[there4eyeM]

...and time is money, so God is...

Well, when I was fifteen a man did explain to me that God was money. Young and impressionable though I was, this I did not at all accept.

 

[Boss]

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.

Well it's simply physics. You understand light travels, right? So when you "see" something, that is something that existed in the past.

No, it is simple sophistry!

No that is something that exists in the PRESENT. Time may pass by the time the present registers in your brain, but the event still happened in the present. There can be no past without a present first, therefore the past is proof of the existence of a present. Your response after this post is proof of a future.

No, it is simple sophistry!

Funny name for Physics.

Nothing you post is even remotely related to physics.

Physics to date has not reconciled Relative time with Quantum time. Physics has made no progress in uncovering the nature of time itself or why it seems different (both perceptually and in the equations of quantum mechanics) than the three dimensions of space, which is one of the greatest unknowns in physics.

Quantum Time Exactly What Is Time

Oh, okay... So your argument against man relying on faith to believe in reality is to show me how there are other things man relies on faith to believe. Brilliant!

 

[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?

Rather than being time, God is "The Time", as taught in Islam. As an instance, look at wold communication in 1995 (before intenet), then look at it in 2015 (after internet and everything it brought), then realize the meaning of God is The Time.

 

[BreezeWood]

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?

Rather than being time, God is "The Time", as taught in Islam. As an instance, look at wold communication in 1995 (before intenet), then look at it in 2015 (after internet and everything it brought), then realize the meaning of God is The Time.

.

Rather than being time, God is "The Time"

apples and oranges, there is no Time relative to the Everlasting ... muslim.

.

 

[there4eyeM]

One's perception of God can only be personal. It doesn't have to, and may not be possible to, be the same for anyone else. Insisting that it be the same for others is an insult to them and to God. It also qualifies as mentally ill, since the delusion that one is supremely right is a sure sign.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Well it's simply physics. You understand light travels, right? So when you "see" something, that is something that existed in the past.

No, it is simple sophistry!

No that is something that exists in the PRESENT. Time may pass by the time the present registers in your brain, but the event still happened in the present. There can be no past without a present first, therefore the past is proof of the existence of a present. Your response after this post is proof of a future.

No, it is simple sophistry!

Funny name for Physics.

Nothing you post is even remotely related to physics.

Physics to date has not reconciled Relative time with Quantum time. Physics has made no progress in uncovering the nature of time itself or why it seems different (both perceptually and in the equations of quantum mechanics) than the three dimensions of space, which is one of the greatest unknowns in physics.

Quantum Time Exactly What Is Time

Oh, okay... So your argument against man relying on faith to believe in reality is to show me how there are other things man relies on faith to believe. Brilliant!

No, I'm showing you that your phony argument which you pretend is from the "authority" of physics is pure bullshit and has absolutely nothing to do with physics. But you knew that already which is why you created a Straw Man rather than admit the truth, like a typical Far Right extremist.

 

[Boss]

Well it's simply physics. You understand light travels, right? So when you "see" something, that is something that existed in the past.

No, it is simple sophistry!

No that is something that exists in the PRESENT. Time may pass by the time the present registers in your brain, but the event still happened in the present. There can be no past without a present first, therefore the past is proof of the existence of a present. Your response after this post is proof of a future.

No, it is simple sophistry!

Funny name for Physics.

Nothing you post is even remotely related to physics.

Physics to date has not reconciled Relative time with Quantum time. Physics has made no progress in uncovering the nature of time itself or why it seems different (both perceptually and in the equations of quantum mechanics) than the three dimensions of space, which is one of the greatest unknowns in physics.

Quantum Time Exactly What Is Time

Oh, okay... So your argument against man relying on faith to believe in reality is to show me how there are other things man relies on faith to believe. Brilliant!

No, I'm showing you that your phony argument which you pretend is from the "authority" of physics is pure bullshit and has absolutely nothing to do with physics. But you knew that already which is why you created a Straw Man rather than admit the truth, like a typical Far Right extremist.

I don't know about "authority" of physics, it is what it is. There is no straw man, you can't observe the present according to physics. What you experience as present is actually past, and physics proves this. You can't "unprove" physics, so you are floundering around calling me names and acting like a twat.

Just like we have faith in God, we have faith there is a present time. We cannot observe it, there is no physical way to verify it, all we have is the resulting evidence to support our faith. We presume there was a present because there is a past.

 

[Boss]

One's perception of God can only be personal. It doesn't have to, and may not be possible to, be the same for anyone else. Insisting that it be the same for others is an insult to them and to God. It also qualifies as mentally ill, since the delusion that one is supremely right is a sure sign.

Let me be clear, I am not insisting anyone believe in the same God or that anyone has to believe in a God at all. I am simply arguing, as God requires our faith, so does the presence of the present. I've demonstrated that what we perceive as present is actually in the past. Based on our perception of the past, we trust there was a present, we just can't observe it.

 

[theword]

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?

Does time exist

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?

Time is something only perceived by an observer if he is aware of it as being time. A good example of this is when you're in a hurry to be somewhere at a planned time in the future. As you're rushing to your appointment while walking on a sidewalk, you come to an intersection with traffic lights. You miss the green light and have to wait until the light turns green again. You look at your watch to see how slowly the second hand is moving. It appears that the light will never turn green again but eventually it does. When you finally get across to the other side of the street, you run into an old friend who gets you involved in a conversation. After an hour goes by, you get a thought in your mind to look at your watch to see what time it is. You learn that it's been an hour but it seems like only a few minutes have gone by. Now you realize you're way late for your appointment and have to make a call to explain why you're late. With this analogy, it's easy to see how time is only an illusion that's perceived to be real by an observe but only when he thinks of time passing by.

 

[Boss]

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?

Does time exist

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?

Time is something only perceived by an observer if he is aware of it as being time. A good example of this is when you're in a hurry to be somewhere at a planned time in the future. As you're rushing to your appointment while walking on a sidewalk, you come to an intersection with traffic lights. You miss the green light and have to wait until the light turns green again. You look at your watch to see how slowly the second hand is moving. It appears that the light will never turn green again but eventually it does. When you finally get across to the other side of the street, you run into an old friend who gets you involved in a conversation. After an hour goes by, you get a thought in your mind to look at your watch to see what time it is. You learn that it's been an hour but it seems like only a few minutes have gone by. Now you realize you're way late for your appointment and have to make a call to explain why you're late. With this analogy, it's easy to see how time is only an illusion that's perceived to be real by an observe but only when he thinks of time passing by.

Time is something only perceived by an observer if he is aware of it as being time.

If this is true, then in your analogy, you should be able to perceive that you are on time even though you're not. Of course we know this is not so. Regardless of your observations, awareness and perception, time still passes by.

Time is not an illusion. Our perception of time is an illusion, specifically our perception of the present. We only have perception of time after it has passed. We can't perceive the present because of physics. What we perceive as present is already in the past.

Here's a little different analogy... You can say you watched the Super Bowl live when it happened on your TV. But you actually didn't see it live. What you saw on television was several seconds delayed and was no longer "live" as in the present. If you were in the stadium, you can also say you saw the game live as it happened, but again... you didn't. You saw the reflection of light frequency bouncing off objects and traveling to your eyes where the image is transmitted to your brain and registered as something you saw. By the time this all takes place, what you see is already in the past. The point of this analogy is, we can have different perception of the same thing and both perceptions can be inaccurate.