Is Memory the Key to Disproving the Existence of God?

[DeadWolfe]

Originally posted by Squeeze
The proof that there is no god:


The assumptions of god:

1. It has a personality or consciousness.
2. It is all-powerful and all knowing.
3. It controls all reality including the laws of matter or nature.
4. It has always existed.

Assumption 1 and 2 are critical in the proof that there is no god. In order to have consciousness and be all knowing requires a fundamental ability called memory. God must have some means to store information. Memory is a very definitive attribute; memory is the ability to sense information. In order to do that some state of something that functions as memory changes so as when acted on information can be determined. There is no other definition of memory and in fact the concept of memory is like the concept of a circle. The definition of a circle is all points along the arc are equaly distant from a common center. The circumference of the circle divided by it's diameter is always equal to pi. No matter how big or small the circle, no matter what type of universe you may find yourself in, the character of a circle remains.

Given that god must have memory and that part of god is a component of god which it did not create since god was not created and that component of god is governed by processes that abide by the definition of memory, then god is subject to elements that are governed by their nature and not the will of god! God ends up being a product of components one of which is memory.


This analysis from assumption 1 and 2 is an unavoidable conclusion, god is subject to the physics of the elements that it is composed of that are the governing processes of it's components. This truth disproves assumption 3 which states that god controls all reality including nature, since it's components govern how god operates on information and therefore is a form of nature that god does not control but is being controlled by.

Since god is controlled by elements that it is composed of it is not all-powerful and would suffer from problems of the uncertainty principle, which are based on whatever contraints of its nature, making it not all knowing!

Because god is composed of components and is therefore a subject of nature, it must devise methods to avoid destruction or entropy, so it must repair itself and must replenish energy.

Finally the elements god is made of had to exist first before they could compose into god, therefore god did not always exist.

If you prove that a being created life on Earth you still haven't proved that the being is a god. It's not that there is no evidence of a god, the concept of god is a nonsensical notion based on naive assumptions.

No. God does not need memory. Would you also suggest that to have a personality God needs a brain?

 

[DeadWolfe]

And if these assumptions are naive, your proof should be obvious. Goddamit why are you wasting my time??

 

[Squeeze]

Originally posted by DeadWolfe
No. God does not need memory. Would you also suggest that to have a personality God needs a brain?

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 physics whether we've exprienced it or not.
Actually anything that exists is the product of some kind of physics...

 

[DeadWolfe]

Originally posted by Squeeze
Ah...you don't get it. Ultimately a god is a collection of information, just as anything that exists is information.

Ah; this terrible gibberish.

 

[Squeeze]

Originally posted by DeadWolfe
Ah; this terrible gibberish.

Sorry to burst your god bubble.

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

Originally posted by Squeeze
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 physics whether we've exprienced it or not.
Actually anything that exists is the product of some kind of physics...

ahem...with all due respect, I can point you to something that holds information without needing memory...

the universe. it has no memory, but it holds lots and lots of structured meaningful information.

 

[Squeeze]

Originally posted by modmans2ndcoming
ahem...with all due respect, I can point you to something that holds information without needing memory...

the universe. it has no memory, but it holds lots and lots of structured meaningful information.

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...

 

[Squeeze]

Originally posted by DeadWolfe
Squeeze = Hideously dumb bastard

Information (and certainly memory) are PERCPETIONS of things that exist, you awful goddamn jackass.

Did I just hear the squeel of a pig? Oh! It was just Deadwolfe doing...you know what...

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

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.

 

[gizzybeans]

Originally posted by Squeeze
The proof that there is no god:


The assumptions of god:

1. It has a personality or consciousness.
2. It is all-powerful and all knowing.
3. It controls all reality including the laws of matter or nature.
4. It has always existed.

Assumption 1 and 2 are critical in the proof that there is no god. In order to have consciousness and be all knowing requires a fundamental ability called memory. God must have some means to store information. Memory is a very definitive attribute; memory is the ability to sense information. In order to do that some state of something that functions as memory changes so as when acted on information can be determined. There is no other definition of memory and in fact the concept of memory is like the concept of a circle. The definition of a circle is all points along the arc are equaly distant from a common center. The circumference of the circle divided by it's diameter is always equal to pi. No matter how big or small the circle, no matter what type of universe you may find yourself in, the character of a circle remains.

Given that god must have memory and that part of god is a component of god which it did not create since god was not created and that component of god is governed by processes that abide by the definition of memory, then god is subject to elements that are governed by their nature and not the will of god! God ends up being a product of components one of which is memory.


This analysis from assumption 1 and 2 is an unavoidable conclusion, god is subject to the physics of the elements that it is composed of that are the governing processes of it's components. This truth disproves assumption 3 which states that god controls all reality including nature, since it's components govern how god operates on information and therefore is a form of nature that god does not control but is being controlled by.

Since god is controlled by elements that it is composed of it is not all-powerful and would suffer from problems of the uncertainty principle, which are based on whatever contraints of its nature, making it not all knowing!

Because god is composed of components and is therefore a subject of nature, it must devise methods to avoid destruction or entropy, so it must repair itself and must replenish energy.

Finally the elements god is made of had to exist first before they could compose into god, therefore god did not always exist.

If you prove that a being created life on Earth you still haven't proved that the being is a god. It's not that there is no evidence of a god, the concept of god is a nonsensical notion based on naive assumptions.

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.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Thanks gizzybeans, you saved me the typing, infinite/infinity = No time... the other three fall with that first one...

 

[Squeeze]

Originally posted by modmans2ndcoming
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.

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.

 

[Squeeze]

Originally posted by gizzybeans
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.

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 existence, 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...

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

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.

 

[Squeeze]

Originally posted by modmans2ndcoming
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.

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.

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

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.

 

[DeadWolfe]

Besides, your 4 inital assumptions, while commonplace, are not necessary to believe in God.

 

[gizzybeans]

First a bit of bashing...

Originally Posted By Squeeze
Given that god must have memory and that part of god is a component of god which it did not create since god was not created and that component of god is governed by processes that abide by the definition of memory, then god is subject to elements that are governed by their nature and not the will of god! God ends up being a product of components one of which is memory.

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.

Originally posted by Squeeze
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 existence, 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...

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.

 

[gizzybeans]

Originally posted by Squeeze
Again you have failed to understand the proof.

Maybe the proof is just wrong, and we understand it fine.

 

[Squeeze]

Originally posted by modmans2ndcoming
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.

No the proof has nothing to do with when the universe existed.

 

[Squeeze]

Originally posted by DeadWolfe
Besides, your 4 inital assumptions, while commonplace, are not necessary to believe in God.

Who the heck is taking about what is needed to believe in god?

 

[Squeeze]

Originally posted by gizzybeans
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.

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!

 

[selfAdjoint]

Cool the passion, squeeze. Contradiction we encourage, insults not. (A principle I need to review myself!)

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

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.

 

[shashi]

Re - A Logical proof of no god

Friends,

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 physicist 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]

Shashi

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

is there any reason this "authority" needs to spam this website with comments promoting his theory?

 

[Squeeze]

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.

Mod,

I've clearly stated my points in the proof and in my responses to you. The fact that you admit they make no sense to you proves you lack the education to underestand them. So I retierate; go back to school.

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

I hardly lack the education to understand them. I have pointed to the problems with your proof and you have ignored them.

I am not the only person who has called you on the problems. so if you need to claim that everyone else is wrong and just not educated or intelligent enough to understand, then that is your prerogative, however it is a very arrogant of you to do so.

I also believe that you are not as educated as you seem to believe I must be to understand your comments. I base that on the condescension and names you have called people who have not said anything to call for such reaction.

 

[Squeeze]

I hardly lack the education to understand them. I have pointed to the problems with your proof and you have ignored them.

I am not the only person who has called you on the problems. so if you need to claim that everyone else is wrong and just not educated or intelligent enough to understand, then that is your prerogative, however it is a very arrogant of you to do so.

I also believe that you are not as educated as you seem to believe I must be to understand your comments. I base that on the condescension and names you have called people who have not said anything to call for such reaction.

Mod,

I really get frustrated when some one retierates their same argument over and over again when I have explained where their arguments are in error. I have addressed the problem with your notions of memory and time. You don't seem to get it. I can only conclude that you lack a math and science background.

And ah...I've only called you a "name" which I believe was well deserved...

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

I believe you called that other fellow a "moron".

and no one deserves name calling...

it is in fact a sign that the person cannot hold a conversation at an intelligent level, which is why intelligent people should refrain from using such words and tactics.

I am not going to argue with you any more about memory and such. one of us is not getting it, so rather than continue with this, I think it will be more productive to just let it be and each consider ourselves to be correct.

let the others decided how they may.

 

[Squeeze]

I believe you called that other fellow a "moron".

and no one deserves name calling...

it is in fact a sign that the person cannot hold a conversation at an intelligent level, which is why intelligent people should refrain from using such words and tactics.

I am not going to argue with you any more about memory and such. one of us is not getting it, so rather than continue with this, I think it will be more productive to just let it be and each consider ourselves to be correct.

let the others decided how they may.

Mod,

You are such a egotist. I only called you a "name", go review the past posts. I asked you to look up references regarding time, rather than do that and educate youself you rant on on how I'm wrong. I gave examples where memory is not recalling past expereinces, rather than admit your wrong you rant on about being right with no arguments as to why.

So mod run away and lick your wounds...There is no all powerful god but only the nature of eternal matter. Matter need not behave in other universe as it does in our universe, but matter is all powerful.

 

[gizzybeans]

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!

Jeez, don't get your panties in a bunch. Let's calm down Squeeze.

First off, my "lame" explanation of time and God is a explanation that has been used for thousands of years. It is standard Philosophy of Religion 101. Please, do some reading, I'm not saying anything new or revolutionary. I'm just repeating old facts, old facts that have long ago settled little problems like the one you have claimed to have divised yourself. Do you really think no one has pondered over this matter before? It has been debated hundreds of times, each time the debate has concluded that your disproof is flawed. You speak of time as relative, but really does that have any relevance on what I said? When the clock slows down, it is still changing, therefore time is still being measured, because it is measured as the change from one instance to the next. From Webster Unabridged Dictionary: time - "the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present ,or future." If the universe's temperature would suddenly drop from 3K to 0K today, time would stop. Why? Because we are no longer changing, we are freezing to death (in this example). I have pointed out the flaws of your proof to you, so have the others on this board. It is up to you to consider them or to continue to insult people ignorantly and to make yourself seem more foolish with each reply.

Also, memory can be defined many ways. Recalling past experiences is just one of them. That aside, it doesn't even matter if we are talking about the same memory or not. I think you have to clearly define that there is going to be a difference between how a computer stores "memory" and the "memory" of God if such a thing exists. But to have memory, I think that would mean God would have to be a changing being. To gain memory, one must change. But God cannot change, that is a fundamental property of God. Therefore, I don't think you can have a God that has "memory" as we have come to know it, unless he has had from eternity the same information stored forever. I explained how this is possible. Please, just ignore it, and continue to believe that it isn't possible.

There is a concept in Philosophy of Religion that you need to understand. If particular definition of God doesn't work, then it takes but a little redefinition and it will now work. Your proof does not work for all cases of God. The image of God can be redefined slightly and that slight redefinition renders your proof invalid.

By the way, I don't believe in God either, but your disproof of God just won't cut it, I'm sorry.

 

[gizzybeans]

is there any reason this "authority" needs to spam this website with comments promoting his theory?

yeah i know, there are like 10 other threads about this theory.

 

[Squeeze]

Jeez, don't get your panties in a bunch. Let's calm down Squeeze.

First off, my "lame" explanation of time and God is a explanation that has been used for thousands of years. It is standard Philosophy of Religion 101. Please, do some reading, I'm not saying anything new or revolutionary. I'm just repeating old facts, old facts that have long ago settled little problems like the one you have claimed to have divised yourself. Do you really think no one has pondered over this matter before? It has been debated hundreds of times, each time the debate has concluded that your disproof is flawed. You speak of time as relative, but really does that have any relevance on what I said? When the clock slows down, it is still changing, therefore time is still being measured, because it is measured as the change from one instance to the next. From Webster Unabridged Dictionary: time - "the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present ,or future." If the universe's temperature would suddenly drop from 3K to 0K today, time would stop. Why? Because we are no longer changing, we are freezing to death (in this example). I have pointed out the flaws of your proof to you, so have the others on this board. It is up to you to consider them or to continue to insult people ignorantly and to make yourself seem more foolish with each reply.

Your arguments of change and god being excluded from changed are fundamentally wrong. If god necessitates a will it is causing a change. Because god is an element in the reaction it is experiencing time. The reason for the reference to relativity was to clarify what time is, which is cause and effect. It doesn't matter if god is the cause; it is still a part of cause and effect and therefore experiences time.

Also, memory can be defined many ways. Recalling past experiences is just one of them. That aside, it doesn't even matter if we are talking about the same memory or not. I think you have to clearly define that there is going to be a difference between how a computer stores "memory" and the "memory" of God if such a thing exists. But to have memory, I think that would mean God would have to be a changing being. To gain memory, one must change. But God cannot change, that is a fundamental property of God. Therefore, I don't think you can have a God that has "memory" as we have come to know it, unless he has had from eternity the same information stored forever. I explained how this is possible. Please, just ignore it, and continue to believe that it isn't possible.

The mechanism of how information is stored is not the issue but that there must be some scheme and that scheme is not a creation by god. Because god requires the functionality of memory to be god it is therefore a product of systems whose nature create god.

There is a concept in Philosophy of Religion that you need to understand. If particular definition of God doesn't work, then it takes but a little redefinition and it will now work. Your proof does not work for all cases of God. The image of God can be redefined slightly and that slight redefinition renders your proof invalid.

Go ahead and try...

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

hey squeeze...I believe Gizzybeans did my work for me...he has just proven that you called some one other than me a name.

I am not licking any wounds...IU am stating a fact that I will not agree with you and you will not agree with me, neither of us will concede to the other, so I am done arguing and reading to your abusive, condensing words. I tried to end this politely once. so again, I am done with you. I do not care if you are done with me or not. others who read the thread can decide for themselves.

 

[SoumyaBanerjee]

i also believe that there is no such thing named god.it is also can be proved in various way.

 

[Jin314159]

The proof that there is no god:


The assumptions of god:

1. It has a personality or consciousness.
2. It is all-powerful and all knowing.
3. It controls all reality including the laws of matter or nature.
4. It has always existed.

You're personifying god too much. What if you break God down to this most fundamental components, namely intelligence and energy?

 

[Lord Flasheart]

Squeeze, have you ever had an imaginary friend? If you didn't, now you do.

I like to think of Humanity as a nuclear family. A single child represents the religious folk, and the parents represent the scientific community. (mother) The child wets his bed, and his parents discovers the stain the next morning.

"Who wet the bed?" she asks. The child, naive and desperate for an explanation, blames it on his newly created imaginary friend, God. This created entity is created by man, and questioned by man.

Who broke the china?
God.

Who is eating the pastries?
God is.

And a bit more complicated/modern...

Who created man?
God did.

What created the universe?
God!

He is really just a phantasm created by man to explain everything that humanity can't explain. The child doesn't know, so he makes it up. The parents are striving for an explanation. They know the child lies when he utilizes his imaginary friend. Therefore, they try to teach the child to grow up.

Perhaps the religious people are only creating God because they haven't met anyone else besides ourselves yet. If we met different entities from far away, what would happen?

Would the child no longer need an imaginary friend in the presence of other people?

Combust away.

 

[Squeeze]

You're personifying god too much. What if you break God down to this most fundamental components, namely intelligence and energy?

That's doesn't change anything, intelligence is an adaptive system. I was reluctant to go down the road of defining intelligence because technology hasn't reproduced it to a human level yet. All the evidence proves that the human brain's neural connections are the basis of our intelligence and emotions. Many then argue the ghost in the machine, you can then argue about animal intelligence, but the Hindus will argue that animals have souls too. Others who accept the neural basis of human intelligence then argue something about quantum consciousness. So I am sticking to the parts or functions that are clearly defined and measurable.

To make a long story short; intelligence requires information and information must be represented with some kind of structure, the more complex the information the more elements required to represent it.

 

[TENYEARS]

Well squeeze 1 for 4 isn't bad.

 

[felipefas]

Are you all trying to play God?. The meaning of God is what is in question. Not the definition. God as an idea was created to represent the creator of things we cannot understand. The moment we learn how anything works, it is not an event made by God anymore but the result of some force that must be created by God. In other words, God by definition is the creator of anything we are too ignorant to know yet. Trying to explaing God or attribute any characteristics (!memory!, PLEASE) is putting him in a level with us or below us. He automatically stops being God. If you would ever want to get an insight on God. Try a human psychology course.

 

[TsunamiJoe]

lord your right and that's my belief but I am going to pretend there was a god and considering i went through 12 yrs of private education learning about the christian god I am also going to assume squeeze is takling about that one

one of the posts touched on the principle that god is outside the universe - which is true, and in every religion one thing it clearly states is that god doesn't live in the physical realm but in the "metaphysical" realm

secondly god doesn't need energy for he doesn't live in the physical realm thus meaning every reason why a human persay needs energy is irrelevant to god

thirdly squeeze your talking as if god is a hard drive - which he is not I am going to relate god to a very rich person - the person wants a car he gets it why you ask? because he can. god wants to create the universe he does why you ask? because he can. its nothing to do with knowlage of god - think of god as being something with the right answers- not because god has tried and failed but because this god is required for excistance to be applicable

and squeese to me it sounds like your some small child who has no religous education or knowlage of any sort and your trying to disproove god - well I am going to end this thing with saying the classical term of without a god where did everything come from? youll say the big bang but i say whered the big bang come from? youll say tons of various differint answers of which i do not wish to deplore at the moment but where did those come from? an all powerful god(s) is the only way to proove any of it. Why? because we weren't there and we don't know who was and we didnt cause it and we can't recreate it yet.

additionally i can probably guess your going to say something like oh yah well then where did god come from? well like i said the physical world depends on a history of matter, where as the "metaphysical" world does not that's why its "meta" because all physical rules are inversed or inapplicable

 

[Deca-of-CD]

Ehh..

"If God created the world, where was He before Creation?...Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end."
-Mahapurana

(I probably spelled the name wrong, though.. I had to paraphrase since a friend is borrowing my hyperspace book..)

Okay.. To start: TsunamiJoe...PLEASE, learn how to type correctly..

"well I am going to end this thing with saying the classical term of without a god where did everything come from? youll say the big bang but i say whered the big bang come from? youll say tons of various differint answers of which i do not wish to deplore at the moment but where did those come from? an all powerful god(s) is the only way to proove any of it. Why? because we weren't there and we don't know who was and we didnt cause it and we can't recreate it yet."

I am going to take this apart, step by step..so you don't miss anything..

"Well, I'm going to end this thing by saying the Classical term of 'without a God, where did everything come from?'"

That just leaves yourself wide open for someone to say "Where did said God come from? Surely, (s)he could not have just..been here, or there--in the metaphysical plane--, without something else being here..."

For God to exist, there has to be Humans to exist to create God in their minds--into what they percieve..

"You'll say the big bang, but I say where'd the big bang come from? You'll say tons of various different answers of which I do not wish to explore at the moment, but where did these come from?"

Personally, as someone who likes physics, I think the Big Bang theory needs some work... Still, as I said a few lines up.. You said 'where did these come from?' .. Assuming you mean the answers, they, again, are what Humans percieve.. Not all humans percieve them, thus this thread is here..

"An all powerful God(s) is the only way to prove any of it. Why? Because we weren't there and we don't know who was and we didn't cause it and we can't recreate it yet."

Why...why must there be some almighty entity that can simply create such a complex universe in '6 days'.. And don't anyone even ****ing think of using that bull**** "Oh, well.. A 'day' way back then could have been thousands of years..".. So if you just had that thought, bash your skull in with a hammer.. The point is, there is no God.. The universe is a self-consistent being in itself, constantly changing and forming new materials that create planetary objects and the like..

And... That book you Christians read..the Bible... Is nothing but a fictitional piece of literature that people read for moral, ethical, etc purposes.. In fact, if you read the Bible as literal (as many people I know do--who happen to be narrow-minded fools), you literally are a ****ing idiot.. The Bible is just a story book..a compilation of numerous stories revolving around one man, whom I believe existed.. as a Rabbi--but certainly no Messiah. Because there is no God..

 

[felipefas]

Deca of CD those are very harsh words to state a point that cannot be proved. I'm I mistaken or you believe in causality? God does not control fate but men control fate. In which case God is mostly (as it has been with the Gods of every other culture) a resort to our innerselves insecurities. At least once in your life you have been in a position where you wish your life wasn't completely in your hands but in the hands of some higher force that may feel pity in you. Before trying to take new found knowledge which is still being studied (big ban) and assume that it is the answer to thousands of years of mental evolution, try to understand our real knowledge of God. The idea of God didn't just happen to come about in the times of Moses or in the time of Jesus Christ, or in the time of Mohammed or in the times of the Mayas and Aztecas or American Indians...blahh...blahh...blahh. Before laws there was religion. The ten comandments may seem trivial on todays standards but it wasn't quite so back then. Killing somebody during a fight over market prices may have been seen as routine. For the higher authorities to wish to have sex with any woman no matter her civil status was probably painful but an every day problem. Ten commandments gave a written law that allowed society to evolve in a healthy way under the watchful eyes of an unknown force bigger than you.

Today, technology has an explanation for most things we used to value as deities. Including the beginning of this universe and many others we don't even know. We can now incorrectly assume that because we understand how things work, we don't need anymore of a God figure. If we can clone...are we Gods ourselves? If we know as much as God does...then where is he? Maybe so if you take in consideration that the individual is vulnerable without society. Leave a modern man in the middle of a deserted island all by himself and he will inevitably die because he is not independent anymore. He is subject to the Chinese or Italian (depending on your wealth) to dress. To the Indian for its rice and to the educated class for his health problems. If the conscept of society has replaced the concept of God then this may be a healthy solution to this discussion. In which case, the only way we can survive phase I (as per Dr. Kiku's book on the Theory of Hyperspace) is to have society follow all those rules that appear in that book (as you say) some christians read called the Bible. Or read the Koran or the Tao or any other religion oriented book out there. They will all agree on the same thing. We need of a certain order which must be bigger than ourselves to keep track on society. Don't get so caught up on the wording. There is much more about it that meets the eye

 

[Deca-of-CD]

"Before trying to take new found knowledge which is still being studied (big bang) and assume that it is the answer to thousands of years of mental evolution, try to understand our real knowledge of God."

I did not say, nor insinuate, that I thought the big bang is right or the correct thing to think... I said the opposite, actually..

But you expect me to believe that some entity was just sitting around on a metaphysical plane and decided to create a universe in the phyiscal?... How is it that said entity is even in existence in the first place? How is it that this entity is in the metaphysical plane instead of the physical, yet he can control both? ... And that is not the main reason I berate and bash religion...

The main reason is that most religions command you to not question..to not wonder... SImply to just blindly follow..just as a cult.. It seems quite odd that many people who are seemingly smart do not want to 'waste their time on petty things such as why we are here', yet spend all of their time on wanting to bang their secretary at work... I don't know why that analogy came out, it's just what I typed v.v

 

[Imparcticle]

"If God created the world, where was He before Creation?...Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end."
-Mahapurana

Hm, if time is without beginning or end, then it cannot be "uncreated". Apparently, this Mahapurana fellow is not familiar with what time is, and existentialist philosophy. Anyway, it is impossible for there to be nonexistence in the first place. If there was such a thing as non existence, then nonexistence would have to exist, therefore contradicting the meaning of nonexistence.

The universe is a self-consistent being in itself, constantly changing and forming new materials that create planetary objects and the like..

You are asserting that the universe is alive? If the universe could have always been, then what's to stop God from always being?

That book you Christians read..the Bible... Is nothing but a fictitional piece of literature that people read for moral, ethical, etc purpose

I suggest you get your facts straight. There have been multiple instances where historians have admitted that the historical references made in the bible are infact, true. That is, consistent with the history books. There have been quite a few documentaries concerning this on the History Channel. Though I could not find
exactly what I was looking for on the History Channel website ( ironically, I found an essay concerning the history of biblical archeaology), I found another site:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-arch1.html

Note the author is a PhD archaologist. I believe his opinion must have some weight (as he has studied to the highest degree).

In fact, if you read the Bible as literal (as many people I know do--who happen to be narrow-minded fools),

Please don't generalize. Some people do take some parts a little too literally(so literally, I wonder if there is any common sense left in this world...). The book of revelation for example recites Armegeddon (sp?). The whole book is entirely symbolic; to understand the symbolism, knowledge of ancient history, and thorough knowledge of the bible is extremely helpful.
While others do not take it literally. Almost every Christian I know do not take it literally because they are well educated.

whom I believe existed.. as a Rabbi--but certainly no Messiah.

Why do you believe this? A messiah, by the way, does not neccesarily have to have some sort of paranormal power. A messiah by definition is a "liberator, a savior". Someone who does save many people/animals can indeed be considered a messiah of sorts.

Because there is no God

To restate, according to your logic: "whom I believe existed...as a [religious leader]--but certainly no [liberator]. Because there is no God..."
There have been many great leaders who have saved his/her people in history. Because by definition, a liberator (which is anologous with "messiah") is (this definiton is actually for the root word, liberate) "To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control." Take Hitler. He oppressed the Jews who resided in the premises of Germany. Then, with the help of the U.S. Americans, the Jews were freed. The U.S. Americans where the liberators; the messiah.
When analyzed this way, your last statement "Because there is no God" is irrelavant to your aforementined statements.

 

[Imparcticle]

I did not say, nor insinuate, that I thought the big bang is right or the correct thing to think... I said the opposite, actually..

That it is incorrect??

But you expect me to believe that some entity was just sitting around on a metaphysical plane and decided to create a universe in the phyiscal?... How is it that said entity is even in existence in the first place?

There is no PHYSICAL evidence to prove it otherwise. Unless you would like to present some?

How is it that this entity is in the metaphysical plane instead of the physical, yet he can control both? ... And that is not the main reason I berate and bash religion...

Please define what "metaphyscal" is and "physical" is in your argument (so we may interpret it in full context. I am not referring to a dictionary definition)

The main reason is that most religions command you to not question..to not wonder... SImply to just blindly follow..just as a cult..

Yes some do and some don't. Be more specific. It is logical to disagree with a religion that does not allow any inquiry concerning the specific branch of religion's beliefs. Take Jehovah's Witnesses for example. They research everything that constitutes their religious beliefs by applying science and history. They question all their beliefs.

It seems quite odd that many people who are seemingly smart do not want to 'waste their time on petty things such as why we are here',

Why is it a waste of time to contemplate our reason for being here? It is a perfectly logical contemplation.

yet spend all of their time on wanting to bang their secretary at work... I don't know why that analogy came out, it's just what I typed v

What do you mean by "bang their secretary at work"?

 

[Deca-of-CD]

Mahapurana is a book, I think...

And what of the thousands of Jews in Egypt as slaves.. There is no recording in history of Jews ever being slaves in Egypt..

In fact.. There are several instances in history in which are only stated in the bible! ..

And, the many unknown writers of the bible can just as easily take some event that actually happened and incorporate it into their writings..

Just as Dean Koontz did in the book Lightning.. One of the characters .. ends to Britain in the 1940's and tells British Prime Minister (forgot his name) to bomb Berlin at..certain points... (I typed it like so... so that if anyone reading, or wanting to read, the book won't have it ruined... If you want exactly how it happens and all, PM me, or ask me on IRC..Imparcticle )

And I just got caught up again in IRC.. So I forgot what else I was going to say...

 

[Deca-of-CD]

Damn, you posted a second time?... Bah, now I have to reply to that...

Please define what "metaphyscal" is and "physical" is in your argument (so we may interpret it in full context. I am not referring to a dictionary definition)

I am...

What do you mean by "bang their secretary at work"?

..I was referring to the rich, businessmen type religious people...

 

[felipefas]

"But you expect me to believe that some entity was just sitting around on a metaphysical plane and decided to create a universe in the phyiscal?... How is it that said entity is even in existence in the first place? How is it that this entity is in the metaphysical plane instead of the physical, yet he can control both? ... And that is not the main reason I berate and bash religion..."

I understand what you mean. However, there is an example that may help my point of view. A cell. A human cell standing alone is quite a living thing. It eats, it defecates, it breaths and makes energy and reconstitutes itself. It duplicates. You could argue that the God for this cell is a Stem cell (the first original cell where every other one came from). However, if you looked at the cells as a group and realize that they are part of something bigger (a liver). Now the cell itself or the stem cell have a different meaning and the sum of all together is the real meaning of their existence. You could still argue that the liver is only part of the digestive system and itself is of no use but the fact that is part of something bigger makes us its God (I hope is not confusing). If you believe God to be an entity (like an individual), then you are expecting to find God within the cells of the body. Just think that you are a finger of God and Imparticle is a hair. As individuals we are let's say disposable. However, as a whole we create a much bigger entity in which the idea of God is better fitted. I think that when Jesus says that he is the son of God and that we are his brothers, he is also saying that we are as sons or daughters of God as much as he was. We all (in another plane) form part of this God. Therefore, he is still much bigger than us to understand. If we weren't around to create an idea of God, would he still exist?