God... Is Time.

[Hollie]

It's remarkable that you continually refute your own claims while you stumble over the arguments made earlier.

You wrote: "The instant you experience as "present" is not in the present anymore, it can't be."

So yes, we have an instantaneous experience of the present. Your various arguments when / when not contradicting themselves suggests there never is a present condition (except when you contradict that argument), but only a past condition. I suppose you're suggesting the present has never occurred.

Follow closely because you are just about to get this. I've not contradicted anything. We do have an experience we call "the present" but it's not in the present when it's already in the past. I don't suggest there never is a present, only that we are unable to observe it. We can only observe time in the past, after the present has happened.

How do we know the present is as we perceive it after-the-fact in the past? Faith. And it is really no different than faith in God or God's 'existence'.

Yes. I've got this.

You wrote: "We do have an experience we call "the present" but it's not in the present when it's already in the past."

You do realize that you write like a five year old, right?

he's hoping to make it something you can understand.......

There's no point being made. It's much like when you rattle on with your YEC'ist fantasies.

You keep using the acronym 'YEC'. What is a YEC?

Young Earth Creationist. A biblical literalist.

 

[BreezeWood]

And it is really no different than faith in God or God's 'existence'.

.
there is no time associated with the Everlasting, the destination of a freed Spirit. the concept of God is a variance to existence without physiology, the set of rules necessary for admittance, freedom - rules are not faith but end results of experience.

.

 

[RandomVariable]

Follow closely because you are just about to get this. I've not contradicted anything. We do have an experience we call "the present" but it's not in the present when it's already in the past. I don't suggest there never is a present, only that we are unable to observe it. We can only observe time in the past, after the present has happened.

How do we know the present is as we perceive it after-the-fact in the past? Faith. And it is really no different than faith in God or God's 'existence'.

Yes. I've got this.

You wrote: "We do have an experience we call "the present" but it's not in the present when it's already in the past."

You do realize that you write like a five year old, right?

he's hoping to make it something you can understand.......

There's no point being made. It's much like when you rattle on with your YEC'ist fantasies.

You keep using the acronym 'YEC'. What is a YEC?

Young Earth Creationist. A biblical literalist.

PostmodernProph is a Bible literalist? How do you figure that?

 

[Boss]

Faith in "the present" is no different than faith in God.

Not true. The present is a measure of time. Time is both measurable and quantifiable, unlike your version of the gawds. There is no faith requirement to understand the passage of time.

Well, no.... a "measure of time" would be a second, day, year, etc. "Present" is not a measure, it's a point. Time is measurable, quantifiable, sometimes linear and sometimes relative... none of this has anything to do with our inability to observe the moment of 'present' time. All we can observe is time passing. We need no faith in something we can observe. The present and future require our faith.

 

[Boss]

Can time create?

Interesting question. At first I was tempted to say yes... look at the Grand Canyon. But time alone didn't create that. Not to sound like Obama, but time had help from other elements. Then I was tempted to say time is required to create something, but again... is it? Quantum entanglement challenges such a notion.

As we've seen in this thread, the word "time" can be used to mean a variety of things. It's never exclusive to any of those things it's just that we use the word to mean different things in different context. In this particular context, we are discussing the "arrow of time" and the point in time we perceive as "present." Our perception of present is actually not the moment of the present, that already happened and we've experienced the after-effect.

We rely on faith because we can't observe, measure, test or examine the precise moment of 'present' time. All we have to go by is what we perceive after the present, in the past.

 

[Hollie]

Yes. I've got this.

You wrote: "We do have an experience we call "the present" but it's not in the present when it's already in the past."

You do realize that you write like a five year old, right?

he's hoping to make it something you can understand.......

There's no point being made. It's much like when you rattle on with your YEC'ist fantasies.

You keep using the acronym 'YEC'. What is a YEC?

Young Earth Creationist. A biblical literalist.

PostmodernProph is a Bible literalist? How do you figure that?

Literal interpretation of the Genesis fable, Noah's Pleasure Cruise, etc.

 

[Hollie]

Faith in "the present" is no different than faith in God.

Not true. The present is a measure of time. Time is both measurable and quantifiable, unlike your version of the gawds. There is no faith requirement to understand the passage of time.

Well, no.... a "measure of time" would be a second, day, year, etc. "Present" is not a measure, it's a point. Time is measurable, quantifiable, sometimes linear and sometimes relative... none of this has anything to do with our inability to observe the moment of 'present' time. All we can observe is time passing. We need no faith in something we can observe. The present and future require our faith.

Pontificating as a way of proselytizing is not helpful. The present and future require no faith. That makes no sense. As I pointed out earlier, time is both measurable and quantifiable, unlike your version of the gawds. There is no faith requirement to understand the passage of time. Similarly, the passage of time will occur from the instantaneous moment of our perception to receding into our past without faith in your gawds or anyone else's gawds.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Yes. I've got this.

You wrote: "We do have an experience we call "the present" but it's not in the present when it's already in the past."

You do realize that you write like a five year old, right?

he's hoping to make it something you can understand.......

There's no point being made. It's much like when you rattle on with your YEC'ist fantasies.

You keep using the acronym 'YEC'. What is a YEC?

Young Earth Creationist. A biblical literalist.

PostmodernProph is a Bible literalist? How do you figure that?

she doesn't "figure" it.....she calls anyone she can't beat in an argument a YEC because it helps her pretend she is superior to them.......

 

[Hollie]

he's hoping to make it something you can understand.......

There's no point being made. It's much like when you rattle on with your YEC'ist fantasies.

You keep using the acronym 'YEC'. What is a YEC?

Young Earth Creationist. A biblical literalist.

PostmodernProph is a Bible literalist? How do you figure that?

she doesn't "figure" it.....she calls anyone she can't beat in an argument a YEC because it helps her pretend she is superior to them.......

You've never put forth an argument for anything. Your silly one-liners do nothing more than defend an inability to adequately express concepts in sentence format.

Other than a YEC'ist, how do we describe one who takes biblical tales and fables as literal rendering of history?

 

[RandomVariable]

There's no point being made. It's much like when you rattle on with your YEC'ist fantasies.

You keep using the acronym 'YEC'. What is a YEC?

Young Earth Creationist. A biblical literalist.

PostmodernProph is a Bible literalist? How do you figure that?

she doesn't "figure" it.....she calls anyone she can't beat in an argument a YEC because it helps her pretend she is superior to them.......

You've never put forth an argument for anything. Your silly one-liners do nothing more than defend an inability to adequately express concepts in sentence format.

Other than a YEC'ist, how do we describe one who takes biblical tales and fables as literal rendering of history?

How does the acronym YEC mean (B)ible (L)iteralist?

 

[sealybobo]

If God is time, then the Bible lied or was wrong when it said God is eternal. Time is not eternal and was created during the Big Bang. Prior to that event, time didn't exist. So if God is time, then GOd didn't exist until the Big Bang created it.

There is not even proof the Big Bang ever happened. It's a theory and we have evidence which seems to suggest a big bang, but we can't prove it and the laws of physics don't support "singularity" which is the ultimate beginning point in the Big Bang theory.

I have stated that God is Time, but this is not to be construed as Time=God and God=Time. God can also be Time + random variable. Or Time could be God minus a random variable.

So, why not just acknowledge that your personal invention of gawds are whatever you want them to be. Gawds for any occasion.

I'm having a real problem getting christians to discuss this whole heaven and hell thing. They will not talk to each other and debate argue or discuss it. Oh half of them will tell me there is no hell or that the bible doesnt say that. One christian said I should stop listening to "small fringe christian denominations", suggesting they were catholics and that they dont believe non christians burn in hell for eternity. I would love to have christians discuss it.

One said it says we go to hell in john something or other and one person said john 2;22;23 says it.

I actually like christians believing all non christians go to hell because it emphasizes how stupid and man made and controlling it is. When they water down god it really comes down to they believe because they can't imagine otherwise, wishful thinking and they are feared into it or brainwashed.

Anyways. Why dont christians care that half the people that consider themselves christians dont even agree on the main details.

 

[sealybobo]

There's no point being made. It's much like when you rattle on with your YEC'ist fantasies.

You keep using the acronym 'YEC'. What is a YEC?

Young Earth Creationist. A biblical literalist.

PostmodernProph is a Bible literalist? How do you figure that?

she doesn't "figure" it.....she calls anyone she can't beat in an argument a YEC because it helps her pretend she is superior to them.......

You've never put forth an argument for anything. Your silly one-liners do nothing more than defend an inability to adequately express concepts in sentence format.

Other than a YEC'ist, how do we describe one who takes biblical tales and fables as literal rendering of history?

Where do the allegories stop and real history begin? I think anyone who believes today is no smarter than people 20,000 years ago. They may know more because of school and all but mentally a less evolved species.

It use to be a good trait to have but I think it will evolve out of us eventually. God willing.

 

[sealybobo]

There's no point being made. It's much like when you rattle on with your YEC'ist fantasies.

You keep using the acronym 'YEC'. What is a YEC?

Young Earth Creationist. A biblical literalist.

PostmodernProph is a Bible literalist? How do you figure that?

she doesn't "figure" it.....she calls anyone she can't beat in an argument a YEC because it helps her pretend she is superior to them.......

You've never put forth an argument for anything. Your silly one-liners do nothing more than defend an inability to adequately express concepts in sentence format.

Other than a YEC'ist, how do we describe one who takes biblical tales and fables as literal rendering of history?

Are you watching Jesus ad on NBC? They are debating with Jews in public. Jews vs christians. I say they are all fools. Is anyone in the crowd an athiest? Probably not hanging out listening to the crazies argue. Seriously if I saw people arguing what they were saying and pushing and threatening each other? Creepy.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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?

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?

OK. I get it. You're a moron and no one ever bothered to tell you.

 

[theword]

Time isn't something that's real. It is an illusion that an observer can sense if he's aware of it. Otherwise, an observer can only perceive one picture at a time that gives him the sense of motion, which is needed to sense time. Since we're only stationary information until processed into pictures, time, motion, space and matter, everything we experience is an illusion.

No one can perceive any picture until light travels. My argument is that we can't observe the present. Regardless of your theories on time, this remains true. If you want to imagine time as slices or frames which give perception of motion, that's fine... it has nothing to do with my argument.

Both light information and information that forms visible objects are processed at the same exact time to form a picture we can observe. That picture is always the present unless God gives us pictures of the future or past to observe, in which, the present can't be observed at the same time.

 

[theword]

Time isn't something that's real. It is an illusion that an observer can sense if he's aware of it. Otherwise, an observer can only perceive one picture at a time that gives him the sense of motion, which is needed to sense time. Since we're only stationary information until processed into pictures, time, motion, space and matter, everything we experience is an illusion.

No one can perceive any picture until light travels. My argument is that we can't observe the present. Regardless of your theories on time, this remains true. If you want to imagine time as slices or frames which give perception of motion, that's fine... it has nothing to do with my argument.

And when light travels, there is an instantaneous moment in time when we perceive the present. Regardless of your god=time™ meme, our perception of time is a function of the interaction of our eyes and brain.

No. It's an interaction of what is happening in the mind, not the brain and eyes. Brains and eyes are only illusions.

 

[PostmodernProph]

There's no point being made. It's much like when you rattle on with your YEC'ist fantasies.

You keep using the acronym 'YEC'. What is a YEC?

Young Earth Creationist. A biblical literalist.

PostmodernProph is a Bible literalist? How do you figure that?

she doesn't "figure" it.....she calls anyone she can't beat in an argument a YEC because it helps her pretend she is superior to them.......

You've never put forth an argument for anything. Your silly one-liners do nothing more than defend an inability to adequately express concepts in sentence format.

Other than a YEC'ist, how do we describe one who takes biblical tales and fables as literal rendering of history?

yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

 

[Genevieve]

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?

Interesting.
But I disagree.
Time is an illusion that we have created.
Time only exists on this earth. Even the astronauts who are in the space station do not experience time in the same way that we do. Once anything leaves the atmosphere and orbit of this earth........... time ceases to exist.

God is Love. In that sentence, Love is both predicate nominative and predicate adjective. Nominative because Love is the essence of God. Adjective because Love describes God.

Love is everything.
Love is everywhere, or almost everywhere.
Absence of Love is ................Hell.

 

[Hollie]

You keep using the acronym 'YEC'. What is a YEC?

Young Earth Creationist. A biblical literalist.

PostmodernProph is a Bible literalist? How do you figure that?

she doesn't "figure" it.....she calls anyone she can't beat in an argument a YEC because it helps her pretend she is superior to them.......

You've never put forth an argument for anything. Your silly one-liners do nothing more than defend an inability to adequately express concepts in sentence format.

Other than a YEC'ist, how do we describe one who takes biblical tales and fables as literal rendering of history?

yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

As for the rest of the various bibles, just interpret them to suit your likes/dislikes.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Young Earth Creationist. A biblical literalist.

PostmodernProph is a Bible literalist? How do you figure that?

she doesn't "figure" it.....she calls anyone she can't beat in an argument a YEC because it helps her pretend she is superior to them.......

You've never put forth an argument for anything. Your silly one-liners do nothing more than defend an inability to adequately express concepts in sentence format.

Other than a YEC'ist, how do we describe one who takes biblical tales and fables as literal rendering of history?

yet it continues to escape your notice that I do not interpret the scriptures as literally as you wish I did.......

Yet it continues to escape your notice that Genesis is not a literal event that occurred 6,000 years ago or that the Noah cruise to nowhere did not occur just a few thousand years ago.

and yet I believe neither......