The Debate of God.

[Tiberius]

You are looking at the situation flat and linearly, in terms of cause and effect. The real situation is that it is a part of the larger singular event of the universe unfolding, which is without cause: tsunamidestructionuniverseunfolding. There is no real delineation between the two. Therefore we can say that the tsunami is an action of the universe in the same way as a sunspot flare is an action of the Sun.

Yes, the tsunami was an event that occurred in the universe.

Now, what about this nonsense you have of effects creating the cause?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, the tsunami was an event that occurred in the universe.[

It was not. It was wholly a function of the universe, just as you are.

Now, what about this nonsense you have of effects creating the cause?

Excuse me?

 

[Tiberius]

It was not. It was wholly a function of the universe, just as you are.

Are you a hippy?

Excuse me?

When you said, "it is the present which creates the past."

Honestly, it sounds like you're high or something. You're claiming that influences can travel backwards in time.

 

[tAVROS]

I have a story, [ Don't badger me for it ]. So the other day i was thinking about a lame episode of Family Guy, [ Don't like it much, i was bored] and i thought of the phrase, "Christians don't believe in gravity". At first i thought to myself, that was a stupid thing to say, but weeks pass until now and i think to myself; We have the THEORY of the Big Bang, and gravity is one of the basic elements that created the universe. MOST christians believe in Creationism, and ALL/MOST also believe in gravity, [ remember, the force that keeps us on the ground :b ], how can they belive in gravity?


Yes, i do know i'm implying that the Theory of the Big Bang is real.

I mean their beliefs contradict each other, AND i'm still really young, answer my question the best way possible. And yes I'm Athiest. Thanks! <3

 

[Tiberius]

Christians believe in gravity because there's no way for them to deny it.

 

[Orias]

Christians believe in gravity because there's no way for them to deny it.

I'm no Christian.

But disprove gravity...well what happens if we take the label away?

 

[Tiberius]

Things do not exist just because there is a label for it.

A duck is a duck even if there are no people to call it one.

 

[godnotgod]

Are you a hippy?

Are you?

When you said, "it is the present which creates the past."

Honestly, it sounds like you're high or something. You're claiming that influences can travel backwards in time.

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I am saying that they originate in the present moment and trail off into the past. Did you watch the video I provided?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Ooohhhhh, I get it, They occur in their own respective present, then become past.

 

[godnotgod]

Things do not exist just because there is a label for it.

A duck is a duck even if there are no people to call it one.

Then it cannot be a duck, but it is what it is.

 

[godnotgod]

Ooohhhhh, I get it, They occur in their own respective present, then become past.

Hey, I think you're getting close!

If you missed the video I provided, here it is again:

The present creates the past....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4j6cUwCRmI

If you find this topic fascinating, you can check out the expanded 6-part video here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...t-creates-present-vice-versa.html#post2847707

 

[Tiberius]

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I am saying that they originate in the present moment and trail off into the past.

Um...

I think you have it the wrong way around.

If I drop a pebble into a pond, then look again after ten seconds, I will still see ripples. The ripples originated in the past (ten seconds ago, when I dropped the pebble in) and trailed off into the future (which is why i can still see them now).

 

[godnotgod]

Um...

I think you have it the wrong way around.

If I drop a pebble into a pond, then look again after ten seconds, I will still see ripples. The ripples originated in the past (ten seconds ago, when I dropped the pebble in) and trailed off into the future (which is why i can still see them now).

You did not drop the pebble into the pond ten seconds ago in the past; you dropped it in the present moment, and the ripples are an echo, or trace, of that event, which are also occurring in the present. (Actually, dropping pebble and ripples are a single event). There never was a past or future. Both dropping the pebble and ripples occur in the present, as all events do.

Now if you say that you dropped the pebble into the pond and ripples resulted, you are speaking from memory, which is where all past events are stored. There is no past as such; there is only the trace, or memory, of expired present events.

You might argue that you can predict the future by dropping the pebble into the pond by saying that ripples will result, but you are basing the statement on known behavior, which is based on the past, or repeatable data stored in memory. All you can really say is that ripples will result in the present, which is actually when they occur.

When you say 'ten seconds ago' you are not speaking about a past that exists in reality, but about the system of measurement you are employing to record the event, and that is where the general confusion lies when most of us think that past events create the present. We mistake the linear system of measurement employed of an event for the actual reality. 'Ten seconds ago' is a point on that linear scale which was actually an event in the present moment, but because of a flaw in the mind, we associate the event with the scale to measure it called Time.

If you look closely, what is trailing off and fading away are at the outer edges of the ripples, away from the center where the original event occurred. The analogy is not exactly comparable to the ship/wake analogy since the ship cutting the wake is an ongoing event in the present.

 

[Tiberius]

You did not drop the pebble into the pond ten seconds ago in the past; you dropped it in the present moment, and the ripples are an echo, or trace, of that event, which are also occurring in the present. (Actually, dropping pebble and ripples are a single event). There never was a past or future. Both dropping the pebble and ripples occur in the present, as all events do.

Now if you say that you dropped the pebble into the pond and ripples resulted, you are speaking from memory, which is where all past events are stored. There is no past as such; there is only the trace, or memory, of expired present events.

You might argue that you can predict the future by dropping the pebble into the pond by saying that ripples will result, but you are basing the statement on known behavior, which is based on the past, or repeatable data stored in memory. All you can really say is that ripples will result in the present, which is actually when they occur.

When you say 'ten seconds ago' you are not speaking about a past that exists in reality, but about the system of measurement you are employing to record the event, and that is where the general confusion lies when most of us think that past events create the present. We mistake the linear system of measurement employed of an event for the actual reality. 'Ten seconds ago' is a point on that linear scale which was actually an event in the present moment, but because of a flaw in the mind, we associate the event with the scale to measure it called Time.

If you look closely, what is trailing off and fading away are at the outer edges of the ripples, away from the center where the original event occurred. The analogy is not exactly comparable to the ship/wake analogy since the ship cutting the wake is an ongoing event in the present.

Truly I am at a loss to understand you.

When I woke up this morning, I got dressed and then I went to work.

Did I get dressed in the past and am at work in the present, or am I still getting dressed and what I see of me being at work is an echo?

What you are saying is nonsense according to the vast majority of scientists who study this sort of thing.

 

[godnotgod]

Truly I am at a loss to understand you.

When I woke up this morning, I got dressed and then I went to work.

Did I get dressed in the past and am at work in the present, or am I still getting dressed and what I see of me being at work is an echo?

What you are saying is nonsense according to the vast majority of scientists who study this sort of thing.

Heh...heh...science does not study reality, but only the traces of reality.

If you ask the people who work at the atomic clock facility in Colorado, they will tell you that they do not measure Time; that what they provide is a measurement system.

You got dressed in the moment you got dressed in, which was, at that moment, the present, was it not?. Then you proceeded to go to work, which you executed in that particular moment, which was also in the present, did you not? You're getting dressed is now only a memory. It is no longer occurring. Therefore, it is not real, as in a concrete past reality that actually exists apart from your memory of it. The only reality is that you are now at work, dressed.

Did you bother to watch the video I provided? Might help you grasp the idea.

 

[Tiberius]

You have no evidence to support any of these claims you are making. Provide evidence before you expect me to believe a word of your nonsense.

 

[godnotgod]

You have no evidence to support any of these claims you are making. Provide evidence before you expect me to believe a word of your nonsense.

You're just in denial, that's all. The evidence is contained within the argument itself. You just refuse to see because your mind is so conditioned by your social indoctrinations and 'Holy Science'. Try SEEING rather than THINKING. Then you'll see. See?

Again, did you watch the provided video so that you might get a clue?

"A million people watched, but no one saw a thing"

 

[tAVROS]

You're just in denial, that's all. The evidence is contained within the argument itself. You just refuse to see because your mind is so conditioned by your social indoctrinations and 'Holy Science'. Try SEEING rather than THINKING. Then you'll see. See?

Again, did you watch the provided video so that you might get a clue?

"A million people watched, but no one saw a thing"

I'm a full blown athiest, and you are pretty reasonable. At first when i read your last replies, i thought you were just writing nonsense. But i as i read more and more, i finally hit rock bottom... I'll watch your video to get a better idea.


And i hate to say this but, yeah, Tiberious is in denial. You gave the "Give me your evidence" reason out when you realized he had a point. :/ It seemed off, if you did mean it you would have said it before, instead of insulting GodnotGod.

 

[tAVROS]

I get exactly like that when i'm out of options. Not saying you're wrong Tiberious. You always have the right ideas. i.e i always think you're right about topics, like these.

 

[Tiberius]

You're just in denial, that's all. The evidence is contained within the argument itself. You just refuse to see because your mind is so conditioned by your social indoctrinations and 'Holy Science'. Try SEEING rather than THINKING. Then you'll see. See?

Again, did you watch the provided video so that you might get a clue?

"A million people watched, but no one saw a thing"

You are proposing that we abandon science and thinking as a way of learning about reality?

And no, I haven't had a chance to watch that video yet, in fact, I completely missed you posting it. Must have something to do with the fact that I've been busy working and only snatching a bit of time here and there to get on the net at all, what with my 5 and 6 am starts.