Everything on this planet came from a star. Maybe not even the same star. Ultimately everything is made of star stuff. One day this planet and our sun will die and everything i n our solar system will be absorbed into and other solar system and galaxy and solar system. One day you might become.part of another world maybe the next big bang. But that's after you died and became ashes to ashes.and after the billions of years yoj ur xuzt might end up on a planet like Venus or jupitar where you'll not live. Oh well. Maybe the next go around. Seeing as how 99.9999% of the univedse is not good for life. Feel lucky you got 1 shot.
God... Is Time.
- Thread starter Boss
- Start date
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
Again, perception is useless in physics as it is a variable, the present always happens in the present no matter when, where or if it is perceived or not. If there was no present there could be no perception of the present.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
Whether you observe it or not, the present moves inexorable on.
Sorry, your drawing doesn't disprove physics. You cannot observe the moment of present time. You can only have a perception happening in the past, of which you can have faith that this perception is accurate.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
That's because it IS physics!
Sorry, your drawing doesn't disprove physics.
BreezeWood
VIP Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 19,381
- 1,598
- 85
.
again, by physics it is observable - the OP's non-observable delay is only a meaningless physiological issue.
.
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #948
The present can't "happen" because for things to "happen" takes time. What we perceive as "the present" is already in the past before we can perceive it. The present has moved on. It is beyond our ability to observe because physics must happen in a physical universe for us to realize perceptions.
Now you can SAY "If there was no present there could be no perception of the present" but that is a faith-based assumption you cannot support with physics or science. You can't verify something you cannot observe. You may as well be saying "If there was no God, there could be no perception of the present!" Both require faith.
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #949
It's not meaningless. Yes it's a physiological issue, we are bound as physical beings to a physical universe operating under the laws of physics. We cannot observe the present moment of time because physics has to happen first. We rely on FAITH in our perception of what we assume to be "the present time" but our information is arriving in the past.
PostmodernProph
....fully immersed....
no.....that's the boards phoney debater's spelling......Picky, picky, picky. That is the phonetic televangelist spelling.no it isn't.....no "gawds" in the title at all......It's YOUR title, liar!
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
The present IS what's happening in the present no matter when or if it is perceived. The present happens independent of any perception or faith.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
It disproves your pontification in every way.
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #954
Again, I have not made the argument that the present must be perceived. The only way we have of knowing a present exists is perception of it in the past. We can't observe the present due to physics. You can presume the present is happening in the present, that is what most of us do assume, but it is a matter of faith because we can't prove it through observation. Because of physics our perception lags behind the moment of present time and we must rely on faith that the present is as we perceive it to be.
This literally puts all concepts of God and Spirit in the same category as the moment of present time. Something we cannot observe or confirm with science and must rely on faith to believe it exists. You've not refuted this and no one can because it's the truth. All you can do is try to muddy the waters with semantics tricks and obfuscation. Quick, create a smoke and mirrors distraction so that this point is not made! But... the point has already been made and it hasn't been refuted.
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #955
No, I am sorry, it doesn't disprove anything. You presented an incorrect graphic that isn't even about the OP topic. Best I can tell, it is part of an explanation of space-time continuum relating to quantum theory. It's kind of like using a children's Thanksgiving play as the basis for an argument supporting our glorious relationship with Native Americans.
BreezeWood
VIP Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 19,381
- 1,598
- 85
.
you are in a state of delusion, physics is not a conveyor nor in any manner reciprocal for any action ... your faith is in Google, bossy ... and stop pontificating as though because you are unable to reconcile the Spiritual with the Physical it aplies to anyone else.
.
Those of you who put your faith in science will be deceived of what time, space and matter are. Only our Creator can teach us how He created everything. Time, space and matter are only illusions and so is everything we observe. In other words, nothing we experience is actually something real. It's only perceived as being real.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
Boss
Take a Memo:
- Thread starter
- #959
I'm in a state of delusion for making an irrefutable physics argument? Where did I state physics is a conveyor or reciprocal for any action? Sounds like YOU are the one who is delusional, you keep reading crazy shit that isn't there that I never said. As for reconciling the spiritual with the physical, whenever you present some valid physics which supports spirituality, I am willing to listen. As far as I am aware, physics doesn't examine the spiritual because it can't observe it. In that respect, spirituality is in the same category as present time, non-observable and dependent upon faith. And this applies to everyone.
BreezeWood
VIP Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 19,381
- 1,598
- 85
.
but bossy you are claiming present time is observed, (just) "delayed" requiring faith in its accuracy ... by something ?
physiology =/= cognizance ... as before they are apples and oranges, physiology sees nothing and is only responsive.
cognizance = present time </> physics
the OP simply is incapable of recognizing the cognizant connection to time but implies that same connection is only a physiological response,.
.
Similar threads
