edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,887
- 1,830
You are in a state of delusion for thinking your pontification is an argument of any kind!I'm in a state of delusion for making an irrefutable physics argument?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are in a state of delusion for thinking your pontification is an argument of any kind!I'm in a state of delusion for making an irrefutable physics argument?
.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.
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,.
.
You are in a state of delusion for thinking your pontification is an argument of any kind!I'm in a state of delusion for making an irrefutable physics argument?
You have yet to make an argument to refute, you simply pontificate and name drop "physics." Your pontifications have been thoroughly refuted by physics, but you are too delusional to see it in the present.You are in a state of delusion for thinking your pontification is an argument of any kind!I'm in a state of delusion for making an irrefutable physics argument?
Well the argument stands until it is refuted. You've not refuted the argument.
But the "fact" you are stating about observation and perception have nothing to do with how physics defines, measures or calculates the present time.I am stating a fact that physics can't deny.
You have yet to make an argument to refute, you simply pontificate and name drop "physics." Your pontifications have been thoroughly refuted by physics, but you are too delusional to see it in the present.You are in a state of delusion for thinking your pontification is an argument of any kind!I'm in a state of delusion for making an irrefutable physics argument?
Well the argument stands until it is refuted. You've not refuted the argument.
boss, just because ed articulates it like a dunce doesnt mean your op doesnt fall short bruvva
i will defer to my lovvey side and say i like ya man
but come on.
that we dont is a matter of opinion
That is not an argument, it is a pontification contrary to physics. There is no Law of physics that requires the present to be observed to exist. You were challenged to produce such a law of physics, but all you do is re-pontificate the same BS.the OP makes an argument that human beings, being bound by physics, are unable to observe the moment known as "present time" and we rely on our faith in the perception we have of it after the fact.
There you go again, contradicting your pontification again. The present had to be the present before it could "move on" to the past, independent of any observation.the present has moved on
Baloney!we cannot confirm it with any scientific means because it cannot be observed to verify this.
If you think you are doing anything that even approaches intellectualism, you are on drugs! You are spewing pure sophistry!an intellectual conversation on a public forum.
You have yet to make an argument to refute, you simply pontificate and name drop "physics." Your pontifications have been thoroughly refuted by physics, but you are too delusional to see it in the present.You are in a state of delusion for thinking your pontification is an argument of any kind!I'm in a state of delusion for making an irrefutable physics argument?
Well the argument stands until it is refuted. You've not refuted the argument.
No, the OP makes an argument that human beings, being bound by physics, are unable to observe the moment known as "present time" and we rely on our faith in the perception we have of it after the fact. That's the argument you have not refuted. I predict you can't refute it and you'll continue to try and turn the argument into something you can win or simply LIE LIE LIE LIE about what has been said thus far.
So far, I have seen the hilarious "Hollie's Theory of Instantaneous Perception"â„¢ in which we must suspend physics and assume that light doesn't need to travel and electric impulses don't need to transmit to our brain and our brain doesn't need to process the impulses into thought.... Seems a bit "magical" to me, and she never submitted anything of physics or science to support her faith. Then we have your argument that physics and science CAN measure and test something it can't observe. I've yet to see any credible support for your opinion. In fact, this is the 'go-to' argument for Atheist Science religious disciples in their Anti-God pontification. If Physics can actually measure and test that which cannot be observed, then it should be able to measure and test God. ....I like it.... G>U ...simple but elegant formula!![]()
Of course we can observe the moment of present time. In spite of your whining to the contrary due to your religious fundamentalism, nothing in your false portrayal of physics refutes the above.From what to what?passage of time.
Past to more distant past.
Again... Because of physics having to happen, we cannot observe the moment of present time. I don't give a damn how long you want to obfuscate and dance around playing semantics games, that isn't going to change. All humans can have is a perception of is time which has already passed. The perception we assume is the present is already in the past forever. We require faith to believe our perception of the present is an accurate representation.
I'm not interested in disproving any gawds / gawds =time nonsense that bossy believes but is unable to support .Wasting someone's time by repeatedly denying what they're saying when you know damn well what they mean is no way to prove or disprove God, though it is sufficient evidence for the existence of Satan.
That is not an argument, it is a pontification contrary to physics. There is no Law of physics that requires the present to be observed to exist. You were challenged to produce such a law of physics, but all you do is re-pontificate the same BS.the OP makes an argument that human beings, being bound by physics, are unable to observe the moment known as "present time" and we rely on our faith in the perception we have of it after the fact.