God... Is Time.

[edthecynic]

Every moment that passes furthers the probability that the present is continuing to occur.

Your'e fucked in the head.

You are fucked in the heart.

 

[Muhammed]

Lights up slowly. Music softly, and then building.

Striding to the middle of the room.

Stepping upon the SoapBox of Everlasting Clarity.

loud clear voice:

Yes, you are right. I realize what you say is correct. Thank you for helping me understand. I appreciate it.

Stepping off Soapbox.

Purposeful stride to wings, Exuent.

Music down. Lights down, and out.

Curtain.

You're in the religious forum preaching to religious people about honesty, why don't you be honest and tell us why you hate religion so much. And no BS, generic reason. Your personal reason for hating religion. An honest answer you might say. Show us how it is done.

Your heavy handed proselytizing is not the way to win converts.

I'm here to counsel you if you want to free yourself from fear and superstition. All you have to do is take the first step and an intervention can be arranged.

I was raised an atheist. How about you?

Yes.


Go on.


And how does that make you feel?

It gave me a great distrust of religion. I am also a third generation software engineer so being logical and exact is almost in my blood one might say. I only learned about God about this time last year. Only after my parents were divorced after 27 years of marriage did I learn my mother is religious. She now attends Episcopalian church regularly. After the Army I lived with my grandmother for a couple years. Her parents were Jewish but she revolted against her parents and married a 'scream at the Church atheist', where my father gets it from. I don't know how much of her character is from being raised Jewish and how much from being a child of the Great Depression. She was born in 1918 and passed away recently. My wife, to whom I have been married 20 years, is a Shiite Muslim raising in Iran. She is non-practicing but she went to one of the best Islamic girl schools in Tehran. I have spent a lot of time with the in-laws and learn many of the customs, often the hard way. My wife insists I am Jewish so one can imagine how well she likes me devoting my life to God, not her God though. My teenager is a ardent atheist. Since I was not religious I figured in time he would become agnostic as I was from about 10 until a year ago.

Well, that's me in a nutshell. Care to share or is this all about me? I'm feeling very selfish here.

I extend my condolences regarding your mother's death.

Most of us will have to deal with the grief resulting from the death of a parent.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
- this thread only continues due to the OP's temper tantrum when asked to distinguish between physiological properties in registering events than the events themselves as being non relational to their interpretation.

.

 

[Boss]

There you go again, creating a Straw Man to free you to lie and deny!

Dishonest lying scum that you are, made in the Image of God, you deliberately left out the word "EVIDENCE" to create your Straw Man, again proving God is impotence and impotence is God.
Thank you.

Well sorry but you were the one who left out words to start with.

My comment was: "We assume the present time happened because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this." (the bold part is what you quoted, dropping the last few words, enhancing 5 words in the middle and changing the context of the sentence.) Then you reformed my statement into "You admit that evidence of the present exists in the past" ...not what I said.

Again... follow closely, idgit... WE ASSUME (you comprehend that, right?) Now what did we assume? We assume the present time happened. Why? Because evidence exists in the past that seems to confirm this. So I have had to break a fairly simple sentence down and spoon feed it to you like an illiterate baby. It's because you want to deliberately misconstrue everything I say... that's your only hope of winning the argument.

The present can't exist in the past if the two ******* words have any significant meaning whatsoever. The present is a specific point in time which mortal humans are incapable of observing due to physics. No other time is the present or can ever BE the present. We have a perception of the present and we trust (have faith) that our perception is reliable, but we cannot prove this because we cannot observe the present to confirm it.

You can rant and rave against God all you like but you still can't observe the moment of the present due to physical restraints which prohibit it. All you have is perception after-the-fact and FAITH in your perception.

 

[Boss]

Theres no faith required that the present is occuring.

Really? How do you know that it is occurring as you perceive it?

 

[Boss]

.
- this thread only continues due to the OP's temper tantrum when asked to distinguish between physiological properties in registering events than the events themselves as being non relational to their interpretation.

.

No, the thread continues because Eddy, GT, Hollie and yourself are on a liberal Saul Alinsky mission to destroy the argument through mindless ranting activism and propaganda. None of you want to be honest about the OP, you're constantly misquoting me, taking things I've said completely out of context and in your case, just randomly making up your own version of things that I never said. You've tried the tactic of personal denigration, public shame, ridicule, humiliation... none of it is working on me. I still keep pointing out how you've not addressed the OP argument.

 

[edthecynic]

The present can't exist in the past if the two ******* words have any significant meaning whatsoever. The present is a specific point in time which mortal humans are incapable of observing due to physics.

There you go again, EVIDENCE of the present does indeed exist due to "physics." One need only OBSERVE the second hand of a clock move. Others are not burdened by your limitations.

 

[edthecynic]

Saul Alinsky

Now you've hit rock bottom!

 

[edthecynic]

you're constantly misquoting me, taking things I've said completely out of context

Yeah, play that perpetual VICTIM card, crybaby.

 

[Boss]

The present can't exist in the past if the two ******* words have any significant meaning whatsoever. The present is a specific point in time which mortal humans are incapable of observing due to physics.

There you go again, EVIDENCE of the present does indeed exist due to "physics." One need only OBSERVE the second hand of a clock move. Others are not burdened by your limitations.

Huh? The second hand of a clock can't move if time doesn't pass. So how does it move in the moment of present time?

The only evidence of the present existing is our perception of it in the past. We cannot observe the present. We only have a perception we realize after the present is gone forever. We rely on faith in our perception that it is accurately depicting reality in the present but we cannot confirm this because we cannot observe the present. Faith is required.

You can't observe the second hand of a clock in the moment of present time or any damn thing else because physics has to happen which takes time which means you're not in the present anymore, Toto.

 

[there4eyeM]

You are thinking now about what you read that I was thinking when I wrote this.

 

[Boss]

You are thinking now about what you read that I was thinking when I wrote this.

Everything you are capable of thinking is happening after the moment of present time has passed. It seems a lot of people here think of "the present" as an arbitrary period of time and it's not. It is a specific point in time. The present doesn't wait for your brain to process incoming information, it continues to be a moving point which is elusive to our observation as physical beings because we're bound by physics. All we can have is a perception of time which has passed.

We're now over 1000 replies and there still hasn't been a cohesive counter to the OP argument.

 

[edthecynic]

The present can't exist in the past if the two ******* words have any significant meaning whatsoever. The present is a specific point in time which mortal humans are incapable of observing due to physics.

There you go again, EVIDENCE of the present does indeed exist due to "physics." One need only OBSERVE the second hand of a clock move. Others are not burdened by your limitations.

Huh? The second hand of a clock can't move if time doesn't pass. So how does it move in the moment of present time?

The only evidence of the present existing is our perception of it in the past. We cannot observe the present. We only have a perception we realize after the present is gone forever. We rely on faith in our perception that it is accurately depicting reality in the present but we cannot confirm this because we cannot observe the present. Faith is required.

You can't observe the second hand of a clock in the moment of present time or any damn thing else because physics has to happen which takes time which means you're not in the present anymore, Toto.

The movement of the second hand MEASURES the movement of time that we are observing.
Again, due to physics, the present does not require observation in the moment to be measured.

I can understand why you require faith that you are accurately depicting reality in your observations of the present, because you live in fantasyland. But you are atypical of sane people.

 

[there4eyeM]

It has not been proved, nor can it be, that I am not experiencing the present. Proving everything identified as external to the satisfaction of one person does not prove to another that it is externally 'real'. If there is any faith involved, it is the faith of another that I am not experiencing the present. I know that I am. That is the ultimate proof that the present exists. Someone's belief that I am wrong is interesting at best.

 

[Boss]

Theres no faith required that the present is occuring.

Really? How do you know that it is occurring as you perceive it?

Im not dead.

Well I'm not dead either but that has nothing to do with how you know something you cannot possibly observe.

No matter how alive you are, you cannot defy physics. Things must happen and time must pass for you to realize perception.... you do understand that, right? Your perception of the present cannot be realized in the present because physics has to happen for you to perceive it. Because physics has to happen, time has to pass, which means your perception of the present is in the past before you can even perceive it.

It seems what you are confused about is perception not being observation. I can watch a movie projected on a screen and have the perception that soldiers are fighting in a war, but I realize my perception is not actually an observation in reality, men are not fighting a war in front of me, it's only a perception of something. if I were a cave man who had never heard of this technology, I might be inclined to have faith that my perception was reality and men were actually fighting a war before my very eyes.

We cannot observe the moment of present time. If you want to post another 1,000 retorts, be my guest... that isn't going to change and you've not presented an argument to refute it. All you are doing is trying to run out the clock by being a dick jerky. I guess you all figure to keep on with this charade until I get frustrated and give up, then you can all slap each other on the back and celebrate victory, but I have plenty of time to continue pointing out how moronic you are.

 

[Boss]

It has not been proved, nor can it be, that I am not experiencing the present. Proving everything identified as external to the satisfaction of one person does not prove to another that it is externally 'real'. If there is any faith involved, it is the faith of another that I am not experiencing the present. I know that I am. That is the ultimate proof that the present exists. Someone's belief that I am wrong is interesting at best.

Again, the argument is not whether or not we "experience" something. It is what we can physically observe and what is beyond our ability to observe. In order for us to actually observe the moment of present time, we would have to suspend physics and pretend things happen instantly without time, and that isn't supportable by physics. Our perception is a byproduct of time passing, we ASSUME the present is as we perceive it, we cannot prove it is.

 

[Boss]

The present can't exist in the past if the two ******* words have any significant meaning whatsoever. The present is a specific point in time which mortal humans are incapable of observing due to physics.

There you go again, EVIDENCE of the present does indeed exist due to "physics." One need only OBSERVE the second hand of a clock move. Others are not burdened by your limitations.

Huh? The second hand of a clock can't move if time doesn't pass. So how does it move in the moment of present time?

The only evidence of the present existing is our perception of it in the past. We cannot observe the present. We only have a perception we realize after the present is gone forever. We rely on faith in our perception that it is accurately depicting reality in the present but we cannot confirm this because we cannot observe the present. Faith is required.

You can't observe the second hand of a clock in the moment of present time or any damn thing else because physics has to happen which takes time which means you're not in the present anymore, Toto.

The movement of the second hand MEASURES the movement of time that we are observing.
Again, due to physics, the present does not require observation in the moment to be measured.

I can understand why you require faith that you are accurately depicting reality in your observations of the present, because you live in fantasyland. But you are atypical of sane people.

Again, if you have discovered a way for physics to measure something which cannot be observed, you've figured out the physics to prove the existence of God. I am very interested in your formula for this, as I am sure many would be.

The measurement of time which has already passed has not a damn thing to do with the moment of present time or our inability to observe it.