God... Is Time.

[edthecynic]

Actually it is proven every time a batter hits a home run!

Does the batter defy physics and travel into the future so he can observe the moment of present time? If not, then it's not proven when a batter hits a home run.

Clearly the batter's PERCEPTION accurately depicted the present he observed in spite of the microsecond delay or he would not have hit the ball.
Argument over!

The batter's perception is not the issue. Everything the batter perceives is already in the past. The ball traveling toward him is already in the past. Light had to reflect off the ball and travel to his eyes and be perceived, the present is gone. When his bat contacts the ball, both bat and ball are already in the past. Objects meet, a force is felt, nerves are stimulated, sense of touch provides a sensation of hitting a ball and the signal travels to the brain to become a perception of hitting the ball... all of it is in the past, it cannot be in the moment of present time. Physics does not allow it.

We can go through all the physical examples you wish, it's always going to be the same. You cannot observe the present, physics has to happen, time has to happen.

You can spew all the doublespeak you want, but you claimed you can't PROVE your PERCEPTION of what is happening depicts the present, but the contact with the ball proves the accuracy in observing the present.

No, it proves accuracy in observing the past... the present cannot be observed.

You struck out!

 

[Boss]

Does the batter defy physics and travel into the future so he can observe the moment of present time? If not, then it's not proven when a batter hits a home run.

Clearly the batter's PERCEPTION accurately depicted the present he observed in spite of the microsecond delay or he would not have hit the ball.
Argument over!

The batter's perception is not the issue. Everything the batter perceives is already in the past. The ball traveling toward him is already in the past. Light had to reflect off the ball and travel to his eyes and be perceived, the present is gone. When his bat contacts the ball, both bat and ball are already in the past. Objects meet, a force is felt, nerves are stimulated, sense of touch provides a sensation of hitting a ball and the signal travels to the brain to become a perception of hitting the ball... all of it is in the past, it cannot be in the moment of present time. Physics does not allow it.

We can go through all the physical examples you wish, it's always going to be the same. You cannot observe the present, physics has to happen, time has to happen.

You can spew all the doublespeak you want, but you claimed you can't PROVE your PERCEPTION of what is happening depicts the present, but the contact with the ball proves the accuracy in observing the present.

No, it proves accuracy in observing the past... the present cannot be observed.

You struck out!

Nope... another lead-off double and RBI.

You can't prove anything about the present because you can't observe it. In your example, you have the perception that a ball exists in a certain time and place and you anticipate the arrival due to physics in order to perceive making contact with a bat. This is your perception of reality in present time, but what you can never do is observe the actual present to confirm your perception.

You cannot use circular reasoning here because Science doesn't operate on circular reasoning. The past doesn't prove the present, only our perception of it.

 

[edthecynic]

Nope... another lead-off double and RBI.

Due to physics, there can be no one on base when the "lead-off" hitter comes to the plate, so it is as impossible for a lead-off double to drive in a run as it is for you to tell the truth.
You just fouled out.

 

[edthecynic]

You can't prove anything about the present because you can't observe it. In your example, you have the perception that a ball exists in a certain time and place and you anticipate the arrival due to physics in order to perceive making contact with a bat. This is your perception of reality in present time, but what you can never do is observe the actual present to confirm your perception.

Wrong as usual. The ball striking the bat is the confirmation.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
without the foundation of the present time for sustenance, there are places reserved for such individuals as bossy, the State Mental Institute (Chattahoochee Hospital in Florida) ... free of charge when committed by a physician.

.

 

[Boss]

You can't prove anything about the present because you can't observe it. In your example, you have the perception that a ball exists in a certain time and place and you anticipate the arrival due to physics in order to perceive making contact with a bat. This is your perception of reality in present time, but what you can never do is observe the actual present to confirm your perception.

Wrong as usual. The ball striking the bat is the confirmation.

No it's not because you can't observe it in the present. No one is questioning you have a perception of a bat hitting a ball. All of it is happening in the past not the present. In order to confirm your perception matches you need to observe the present but you can't observe it... physics has to happen and physics takes time.

 

[edthecynic]

You can't prove anything about the present because you can't observe it. In your example, you have the perception that a ball exists in a certain time and place and you anticipate the arrival due to physics in order to perceive making contact with a bat. This is your perception of reality in present time, but what you can never do is observe the actual present to confirm your perception.

Wrong as usual. The ball striking the bat is the confirmation.

No it's not because you can't observe it in the present. No one is questioning you have a perception of a bat hitting a ball. All of it is happening in the past not the present. In order to confirm your perception matches you need to observe the present but you can't observe it... physics has to happen and physics takes time.

That is pure hog wash. You know you hit the ball, and you know you are not playing football.

 

[Boss]

You can't prove anything about the present because you can't observe it. In your example, you have the perception that a ball exists in a certain time and place and you anticipate the arrival due to physics in order to perceive making contact with a bat. This is your perception of reality in present time, but what you can never do is observe the actual present to confirm your perception.

Wrong as usual. The ball striking the bat is the confirmation.

No it's not because you can't observe it in the present. No one is questioning you have a perception of a bat hitting a ball. All of it is happening in the past not the present. In order to confirm your perception matches you need to observe the present but you can't observe it... physics has to happen and physics takes time.

That is pure hog wash. You know you hit the ball, and you know you are not playing football.

What IS the argument you think we're having? That we have perceptions? That we know things? That we can observe physical phenomenon? None of this is the argument but it keeps seeming like that is what you think. I've never said we can't perceive the present or the present doesn't exist, isn't real, can't be believed in... none of this is MY argument.

Our perceptions are not the issue here. We can perceive all kinds of things. We can have the perception that God exists. We can even perceive that WE are God, or more important than God. If Science has ever proved anything it should be that we ought not trust our perceptions. Just because it appears the universe revolves around Earth, doesn't mean it's true.

The OP argues that we cannot observe the point of present time. It's like God, it is non-observable and depends completely on our faith. The fact remains, you have not overcome the OP argument based on physics and you can't because it's a true argument. For you to observe anything, time and physics MUST happen.... you are a being bound by a physical universe and the laws which govern it. Unless you find a way to defy physics the OP argument will be true. So far, none of you have presented something to defy physics but I am still patiently waiting. I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but you never know!

 

[Hollie]

You can't prove anything about the present because you can't observe it. In your example, you have the perception that a ball exists in a certain time and place and you anticipate the arrival due to physics in order to perceive making contact with a bat. This is your perception of reality in present time, but what you can never do is observe the actual present to confirm your perception.

Wrong as usual. The ball striking the bat is the confirmation.

No it's not because you can't observe it in the present. No one is questioning you have a perception of a bat hitting a ball. All of it is happening in the past not the present. In order to confirm your perception matches you need to observe the present but you can't observe it... physics has to happen and physics takes time.

That is pure hog wash. You know you hit the ball, and you know you are not playing football.

What IS the argument you think we're having? That we have perceptions? That we know things? That we can observe physical phenomenon? None of this is the argument but it keeps seeming like that is what you think. I've never said we can't perceive the present or the present doesn't exist, isn't real, can't be believed in... none of this is MY argument.

Our perceptions are not the issue here. We can perceive all kinds of things. We can have the perception that God exists. We can even perceive that WE are God, or more important than God. If Science has ever proved anything it should be that we ought not trust our perceptions. Just because it appears the universe revolves around Earth, doesn't mean it's true.

The OP argues that we cannot observe the point of present time. It's like God, it is non-observable and depends completely on our faith. The fact remains, you have not overcome the OP argument based on physics and you can't because it's a true argument. For you to observe anything, time and physics MUST happen.... you are a being bound by a physical universe and the laws which govern it. Unless you find a way to defy physics the OP argument will be true. So far, none of you have presented something to defy physics but I am still patiently waiting. I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but you never know!

Aside from your usual pontificating, we clearly can observe present time.

Nothing in your pontificating has refuted that. I don't expect you to present a coherent argument that is not drenched in appeals to your fundamentalist religious beliefs, but ya' never know.

Gawd=time? You have made no case for that slogan.

 

[Boss]

Aside from your usual pontificating, we clearly can observe present time.

But we certainly can't and to argue that we can is ignorant of physics. All we can observe is a perception made possible through physics and time. Until physics and time happen, there is no perception. The problem is, if time happens it is no longer "present" time, it is time which has happened or passed. It's physically impossible to observe the moment of present time.... just like God.

 

[amrchaos]

By the way Boss

I think your "God = Time" is a bit restrictive to some of your non-theistic notions of God.

 

[Boss]

By the way Boss

I think your "God = Time" is a bit restrictive to some of your non-theistic notions of God.

"God = Time" is not a quote by me. The title of the thread is: God... Is Time.

"Is" doesn't mean "equal." It can, in certain applications, but it is it's own word.

Also, as well... the words "God" and "Time" can be ambiguous. As my thread title, it is intentionally allegorical by literary design. In the opening paragraph of the OP, which I assume most have read at this point, the terminology is explained. The thread isn't really about "God" or "Time" in general, but more specifically, human faith and the physical point of present time.

The parallel is drawn. We have perception of a reality happening but we can never observe it directly because we must wait for physics to happen. We also have a perception of something greater than self which some define as "God." We can't observe it directly and we wait for spiritual blessing to happen.

The argument here is not theological or even philosophical, it is physics. Plain and simple. We are trapped in a physical universe reliant upon physics and time to give us a perception we have faith in as reality.

 

[Hollie]

By the way Boss

I think your "God = Time" is a bit restrictive to some of your non-theistic notions of God.

"God = Time" is not a quote by me. The title of the thread is: God... Is Time.

"Is" doesn't mean "equal." It can, in certain applications, but it is it's own word.

Also, as well... the words "God" and "Time" can be ambiguous. As my thread title, it is intentionally allegorical by literary design. In the opening paragraph of the OP, which I assume most have read at this point, the terminology is explained. The thread isn't really about "God" or "Time" in general, but more specifically, human faith and the physical point of present time.

The parallel is drawn. We have perception of a reality happening but we can never observe it directly because we must wait for physics to happen. We also have a perception of something greater than self which some define as "God." We can't observe it directly and we wait for spiritual blessing to happen.

The argument here is not theological or even philosophical, it is physics. Plain and simple. We are trapped in a physical universe reliant upon physics and time to give us a perception we have faith in as reality.

It's more than a little disingenuous to suggest that gawds=time is not a theological argument. Throughout this thread, you have frequently made appeals to the gawds as a part of your misrepresentation of both theology and physics.

 

[edthecynic]

"Is" doesn't mean "equal."

It sure does in physics.

 

[Boss]

"Is" doesn't mean "equal."

It sure does in physics.

1+1 IS an even number. That statement is true but "is" doesn't mean "equal" because there are a LOT of even numbers that 1+1 are not.

No, shithead... "IS" can mean other things even in physics. (forgetting the fact that the title of my thread is NOT presented as a physics formula.)

As I correctly stated before and you ignored: "Is" can imply something is equal. However, seeing how I have now posted about a dozen replies to you, Hollie, GT (and others) on numerous occasions throughout the thread, explaining that is NOT the intention here, and I am the one who wrote it.. I think we kinda have to go with, 'that wasn't the definition intended' and move on. Don't you agree? I mean... do you actually think you know better about what I intended to mean than I do?

 

[Boss]

It's more than a little disingenuous to suggest that gawds=time is not a theological argument. Throughout this thread, you have frequently made appeals to the gawds as a part of your misrepresentation of both theology and physics.

You're reading a different thread than me is all I can say. The fact that you cannot observe the point of present time is not a theological argument or an opinion. It is a matter of physics. It doesn't "appeal" to anything but physics.

You are the nutbag who wants to argue "instantaneous perception" as if we're not physical beings bound by laws of physics. Really, if you are that stupid you should refrain from ever commenting on anything to do with physics.

 

[PostmodernProph]

"Is" doesn't mean "equal."

It sure does in physics.

uh, no......1 is a number, but a number does not equal 1

 

[edthecynic]

"Is" doesn't mean "equal."

It sure does in physics.

1+1 IS an even number. That statement is true but "is" doesn't mean "equal" because there are a LOT of even numbers that 1+1 are not.

No, shithead... "IS" can mean other things even in physics. (forgetting the fact that the title of my thread is NOT presented as a physics formula.)

Nope, "is" ALWAYS means the equal sign.

Translating Word Problems Keywords

The hardest thing about doing word problems is taking the English words and translating them into mathematics. Usually, once you get the math equation, you're fine; the actual math involved is often fairly simple. But figuring out the actual equation can seem nearly impossible. What follows is a list of hints and helps.

Equals

is, are, was, were, will be
gives, yields
sold for

 

[PostmodernProph]

"Is" doesn't mean "equal."

It sure does in physics.

1+1 IS an even number. That statement is true but "is" doesn't mean "equal" because there are a LOT of even numbers that 1+1 are not.

No, shithead... "IS" can mean other things even in physics. (forgetting the fact that the title of my thread is NOT presented as a physics formula.)

Nope, "is" ALWAYS means the equal sign.

Translating Word Problems Keywords

The hardest thing about doing word problems is taking the English words and translating them into mathematics. Usually, once you get the math equation, you're fine; the actual math involved is often fairly simple. But figuring out the actual equation can seem nearly impossible. What follows is a list of hints and helps.

Equals

is, are, was, were, will be
gives, yields
sold for

then if 1 is/equals "a number" and 2 is/equals "a number", then 1 is/equals 2...........

 

[Hollie]

"Is" doesn't mean "equal."

It sure does in physics.

1+1 IS an even number. That statement is true but "is" doesn't mean "equal" because there are a LOT of even numbers that 1+1 are not.

No, shithead... "IS" can mean other things even in physics. (forgetting the fact that the title of my thread is NOT presented as a physics formula.)

Nope, "is" ALWAYS means the equal sign.

Translating Word Problems Keywords

The hardest thing about doing word problems is taking the English words and translating them into mathematics. Usually, once you get the math equation, you're fine; the actual math involved is often fairly simple. But figuring out the actual equation can seem nearly impossible. What follows is a list of hints and helps.

Equals

is, are, was, were, will be
gives, yields
sold for

then if 1 is/equals "a number" and 2 is/equals "a number", then 1 is/equals 2...........

Obviously, you flunked your arithmetic lessons at the Falwell Madrassah.