1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A Logical proof of no god

  1. Mar 20, 2004 #1
    No. God does not need memory. Would you also suggest that to have a personality God needs a brain?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 20, 2004 #2
    And if these assumptions are naive, your proof should be obvious. Goddamit why are you wasting my time??
  4. Mar 21, 2004 #3
    Re: Re: A Logical proof of no god

    Ah...you don't get it. Ultimately a god is a collection of information, just as anything that exists is information. The fact that god is a product of information, no matter what universe you create or discover, then the information that makes god god is the true god.

    Anything that is intelligent is a product of some kind of phsyics whether we've exprienced it or not.
    Actually anything that exists is the product of some kind of physics...
  5. Mar 21, 2004 #4
    Re: Re: Re: A Logical proof of no god

    Ah; this terrible gibberish.
  6. Mar 21, 2004 #5
    Re: Re: Re: Re: A Logical proof of no god

    Sorry to burst your god bubble.
  7. Mar 22, 2004 #6
    Re: Re: Re: A Logical proof of no god

    ahem....with all due respect, I can point you to something that holds information with out needing memory....

    the universe. it has no memory, but it holds lots and lots of structured meaningful information.
  8. Mar 22, 2004 #7
    Re: Re: Re: Re: A Logical proof of no god

    Well...your right the universe does hold information, but that doesn't mean the universe is not a form of memory. Re-read the definition of memory. To put into other words memory is just the perception of a state or information. So is a rock a form of memory...well yes. Its state is a testament of an event or events...
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2004
  9. Mar 22, 2004 #8

    Did I just hear the squeel of a pig? Oh! It was just Deadwolfe doing...you know what...
  10. Mar 22, 2004 #9
    Sqweeze...that is such a cop out.

    your definition of memory then accounts for every piece of matter in the universe.

    if that is the case, then the universe cannot possible exist since memory must have existed before the universe, except, before the universe is a meaningless term since until the universe formed, there was no before. since there was no before, then memory could not have been in existence to make the universe and as such, the universe could not form.

    I look at my hands and see myself, so the universe exists...so your definition of what memory is is not consistent.

    you lose, go back and try to come up with a proof that actually is logically consistent next time.
  11. Mar 23, 2004 #10
    Well it all depends on if you view god as timelessly eternal or temporal

    If god is temporal, or in time, that means he sees events as we see them, he experiences things along with us, and yes he would have to store information somewhere about the past or the future in order to be considered omniscient.

    But, on the other hand, if you view god as timelessly eternal, or out of time, then with one glance God can see the past, the present, and the future simultaneously. It is like a huge mass of information before him, and he can see all at any time. In this case, he would not need to have memory, because everything is before him. I think the view of a timelessly eternal God is perferable to a temporal God because if God is in time, then that raises the question of who invented time? If God did, then is it allowed that He can invent something that would then limit his actions. It is like the old paradox, can God create a stone that he cannot lift? (one answer is since it is contradictory for him to create something that he cannot lift (because he is omnipotent), then he'll create it and be contradictory again and lift it) A temporal God is a slave to time, he can't go back in time and change events (if need be). But if he is outside of time, then it is indeed possible for him to invent time and not be hindered by his own creation.
  12. Mar 23, 2004 #11
    Thanks gizzybeans, you saved me the typing, infinite/infinity = No time.... the other three fall with that first one.....
  13. Mar 23, 2004 #12
    No it's not a cop out, you think memory is some kind of temporal recording placing a time stamp on everything. Memory is simply a retained state, so yes all matter in the universe is a form of memory. If you understood how a memory system works then you wouldn't have this problem of understanding the proof. Using memory to record an event is only an application of memory. So memory as you view it as some some access scheme is not what is being defined in the proof. Memory is information, anything that sustains a state, even if its a mulititude of states, its still memory.
  14. Mar 23, 2004 #13
    Re: Re: A Logical proof of no god

    You view memory as a time stamping process, memory is retained information regardless of time. So a particle is a form of information, it retains this information as a virtue of its existance, there is no need for a container of memory, only retain states are required. So all matter (including virtual particles) is a form of memory.

    I didn't think I would have to go over such basic principles of information theory on this board...
  15. Mar 23, 2004 #14
    Sqweeze.... even though I think you are very condescending, I will point out another very important part of your assumptions that conflict with your proofs conclusions.... read the entire post, and think about it before you respond.

    if God has always existed, then he is outside our universe. since he is outside our universe, then he could have been in existence before our universe was created and could have been made from parts that existed outside our universe.

    again, you have logic problems and need to reformulate your proof since you have not accounted for all your assumptions in your conclusion which has lead you to assume what you are trying to prove.

    oh, and you still did not answer my charge in my pervious post. since by your definition of memory it can account for all matter in the universe, how is it then that the universe came into being at all since by your own admission, there was no memory before the universe was created.

    you failed to see that I was not arguing with your definition of Memory, I was pointing out that your definition makes it impossible for the universe to exist given the conditions for existence you set forth in your original proof.
  16. Mar 23, 2004 #15
    Again you have failed to understand the proof. It doesn't matter if god exits outside the universe, no more than it matters that a game developer exits outside of his game. All systems are aggregates of information; information requires an absolute base that can describe it. Whether this base are the attributes of matter, the collectives of atoms or something we haven't discovered yet it is unimportant. From the assumptions in the proof we know that god must be a collective of information, something as complex as a god cannot be described by a single cause. The functionality of god is determined by the information structures that describe what god is and what it knows. The fact that complex information requires elements to depict it means that such functionality as described in the assumptions happens because of the information that god is composed of. With out information there is no god.

    Your argument about the definition of memory and the existence of the universe is wrong. Fundamentally matter does not need a cause, remember the conservation of energy law: Matter (that includes virtual particles) cannot be created nor destroyed. So in effect matter is eternal, its form may change, e.g. black holes, galaxies, stars, planets, animals, atoms, subatomic particles or things we haven't discovered yet, but matter never vanishes from existence.

    The bottom line mod is any god is a product of some kind of nature, may not be the rules of our universe nor may it exist in our universe. Because of the fundamental nature of information god must be a subject of some kind of physics.

    Please don't respond with a notion of memory being a temproral process or the need for a memory system like a computer memory or human memory, because that is not what is being described.
  17. Mar 24, 2004 #16
    your assumption of God being an aggregate of parts is where you really run into problem.

    you conclude that god cannot exist since he must be made of parts that existed before the universe.....

    all that proves is that he is outside our universe if he exists, nothing more.
  18. Mar 24, 2004 #17
    Besides, your 4 inital assumptions, while commonplace, are not neccessary to believe in God.
  19. Mar 25, 2004 #18
    Re: Re: Re: A Logical proof of no god

    First a bit of bashing...

    I didn't think I would have to go over such basic principles of grammar theory on this board...

    This is a key part of your proof, but it doesn't make any sense. How bout you take the time to reword it.

    I don't think you even read what I wrote. But it doesn't matter, because I just reread what you wrote, and that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read (as a disproof of God).

    The definition of memory is the act of retaining and recalling past experience. Now read what I wrote. If God is out of time, then there is no past, present, or future. So, outside of time, there is no concept of memory. So infact, God does not need memory.

    Now somehow you try to draw conclusions from Him having memory (which you say is a necessary fact – read my post to see why it’s not) with Him now having to be composed of the same elements that we are. The definition of God is the Creator of heaven and Earth. He created the elements of which we are made up. He is not made of something that he created, that is just absurd. So to then say he is an object of the nature of what he created (and limited by it, to the point where he must deal with entropy and decomposing (your examples)) is also absurd. Again, reread what I wrote. He cannot create something and then be limited by it. That is impossible. That is not the definiton of God. If you say that is what happens, then you aren't talking about God. You are talking about something/someone else.

    Face it Squeeze, you are wrong. Deal with it. Also, rewrite that thing up there I told you to rewrite. Even though it is wrong, it be nice to be able to read it without having to stare at it for a few minutes trying to figure out what you are saying.
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2004
  20. Mar 25, 2004 #19
    Maybe the proof is just wrong, and we understand it fine.
  21. Mar 25, 2004 #20
    No the proof has nothing to do with when the universe existed.
  22. Mar 25, 2004 #21

    Who the heck is taking about what is needed to believe in god?
  23. Mar 25, 2004 #22
    Re: Re: Re: Re: A Logical proof of no god

    You are the most ignorant jackass I've ever run into! You don't even know what time is!

    If a computer reads a cdrom is it recalling a past experience or sensing information? If the machine reads its memory to excute a program is it recalling a past experience or sensing information?

    Does god have information? To be all knowing I would think that it would be necessary to have information! The information must be represented in some way and that representation is a form of memory. Your ignorance of what memory is really trying my patience. You're so backward that you think memory is recalling past experiences!

    To get back to your lame explanation of time and god...You idiot time is cause and effect! Get it? Cause and effect! If god senses information that is a CAUSE and EFFECT, therefore TIME! Why do you think time is relative? Why do you think Einstein’s theory of relativity predicted relative time? You think time is a thread, or spatial dimension, its neither! Do a search on google and READ WHY CLOCKS SLOW DOWN DUE TO VELOCITY AND GRAVITY. Oh you might have to review some basic TRIGONOMETERY!

    gizzybeans go BACK TO SCHOOL!
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2004
  24. Mar 25, 2004 #23


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Cool the passion, squeeze. Contradiction we encourage, insults not. (A principle I need to review myself!)
  25. Mar 26, 2004 #24
    Sqweeze, rather than call people names, why don't tou accept the fact that your proof fails at the points we all have poionted to.

    what is worse is the comments you make to defend the proof make no sense in context of what you said. in the proof you make a big deal about one thing, then to defend against what one of us say, you contradict the point in your proof.

    it would do you well to re-read it now, about a week later, and fix the problems with it.
  26. Mar 26, 2004 #25
    Re - A Logical proof of no god


    This is a big question whether god exists or not. You will be pleased to know that this question which has been confusing the people since time immemorial has been finally answered an Indian cosmo theorist who is considered an authority on Cosmology and Metaphysics, namely Dr. Raj Baldev, author of Two Big Bangs Created the Universe (Formed in Eternal Space).

    You will be pleased to know that this theory and its discussion are available on different physics forums and its details can also be had from Google.com by searching Two Big Bangs, being so important and global.

    Dr Raj Baldev in his theory of Two Big Bangs has dealt with the creation of the universe right from the beginning tracing the history of 1 trillion 250 thousand billion years before the Big Bang. He has scientifically under the laws of physics proved how and when the birth of God happened and how to be sure whether it is in existence or not. This he did to remove the confusion in the mind of Stephen Hawking, the great physist from England.

    The theory of Two Big Bangs is on Cosmology explaining how the universe was created but the author feels that each structure of any building needs a builder, an architect, engineer and programmer without which the explanation of any structure cannot be taken as complete. Would you take trouble of reading the book titled Two Big Bangs Created the Universe (Formed in Eternal Space). You can send me an email for my personal opinion if further desired by you. Or have the information of query log on www.twobigbangs.com[/URL]

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook