Is Memory the Key to Disproving the Existence of God?

[juju]

Hi Maps,

I never said there was a real god. I don't particularly care if there is a real god or not.

What I said was my perspective about what a real god's viewpoint might be.

Actually, I want to exist in a manner consistent with my own idea of what a real, intelligent, good god might view as OK. I don't care objectively if this imagined god is real or not.

juju

 

[maps]

Actually, I want to exist in a manner consistent with my own idea of what a real, intelligent, good god might view as OK. I don't care objectively if this imagined god is real or not.

I accept that, juju. By the way, I don't think god, real or imaginary, would ever take any responsibility for the action of any of the organized religions.

 

[Theelectricchild]

Squeeze I don't like your attitude please stop making fun of me!

 

[123rock]

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.

These assumptions are OK, but The Creator is not subject to his own creation, and thus memory by definition is what he is, as well as love mercy, and all the other stuff.

You think that just because the universe's properties apply in this universe, they apply everywhere. That is not the case.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You think that just because the universe's properties apply in this universe, they apply everywhere. That is not the case.

Do you have any evidence besides your own opinion that "everywhere" is not coterminous with "this universe"?

 

[catch.yossarian]

"Thou art God"
- Michael Valentine.

 

[123rock]

Everywhere outside this universe.

There is no evidence for or against it, but that doesn't mean that the same rules apply, for different universe may or may not have different properties.

By his logic, God made logic to disprove himself.

 

[moca915]

Just because you cannot understand something, does not mean that it exists or does not exist...

 

[moca915]

As students in physics, we should realize this... Remember when everyone believed the world was flat and one could fall of the end of the earth? Or when we had no idea how small atoms were? Or that light can act as a particle &/or a wave?

Just because you cannot prove something is true does not mean it is false (or the other way around)... do you get my drift?

 

[n0n]

uhmm.. what's the difference if a god exists or does not exist. for one ether way heaven is what you make of it, and that goes for hell as well. and can be taken symbolically if you don't believe in a god. so is this really a clashing question, were a yes can also mean no, depending on how you look at it. and with that said, by looking at something from multiple ways how is a god to do the same without changing anything (string theory maybe?) ?

if a god exists, what is it made of? energy? , the multiverse bubbles? , humanity? or can we even think of it as "made of" for a being of unmade is not. and we are made and become, so really god is an entity that transcends everything, and is unmade, .. sounds a lot like nothing to me, don't get me wrong for nothing is the only limit to something so pun the word often and maybe you will see god, or at least a realization of it.

but still, (this is a funny question) what does god smell like?

 

[Necrosis]

He smells like a starving kid that was run over by a semi whos driver was too busy talking on his cell phone.


*I state opinions*

From what I have read so far, and I stopped at the end of page 2 or 3, some people need to learn the nature of human beings before stepping into an "argument" like this.

One thing I would like to state, that I believe some people should realize is that...
People don't need to refrain from using "names" or swearing in order to have an intelligent conversation. As "Time" progresses, our vocabulary will grow and shrink accordingly to the culture we subject ourselves to. I was in the Marines. I used to sing cadence calls about Whores and shooting 50 cal's into schoolyards. I also don't believe I am not intelligent, but when I am frustrated and totally believe something and someone keeps trying to make a point about something that I believe I have already re-iterated quite extensively, I feel the need to either say a few choice words, or kick said person in the nuts. It's kinda like having the kids in the back of the car asking "Are we there yet?" Every two seconds, eventually you just tell them to shut their pie holes.

Now some times and some places there are certain restraints that should be complied with, but that's not my argument. My argument is the whole using names and not being intelligent.

So in summary; Hi, I'm Necrosis. I'm kinda mean to people I don't like, but and fiercely loyal to those I do. I'm also a new physics student that loves to learn and achieve more than I should.

 

[Chronos]

I disagree. Nothing in this universe forbids a grand design and a creator. In fact, the evidence suggests we live in a universe that is exquisitely fine tuned to enable our existence.

 

[juggle7]

Once we define God to be omnipotent, God can make himself to have a personality or consciousness, to be all-knowing, to control all reality including the laws of matter or nature, and to transcend time.

I have proved to myself at least that there is no disproof of God.

 

[Prometheus]

Nothing in this universe forbids a grand design and a creator.

Wow! I did not realize that you had access to the knowledge of the entire universe. Good for you.

In fact, the evidence suggests we live in a universe that is exquisitely fine tuned to enable our existence.

Is this even relevant? It seems to me like you are working backward. "Fine-tuned" seems to me to be a highly loaded word. I also wonder what you mean by "the evidence". Fortunately, you were kind enough to tell us that your opinion is a fact. Otherwise, we might have our doubts.

 

[Calculex]

Do you have any evidence besides your own opinion that "everywhere" is not coterminous with "this universe"?

This is an interesting question and I don't pretend to have a definitive answer. But consider the following:

We have pretty good evidence that all the observable matter (and energy) in the universe originated at a point in space time several billions of years ago in our frame of reference (about 13.7 billion years is the current best estimate). So there is evidence that, at some time in the past, the universe as we know it did not exist.

So to suggest that the laws of physics are absolute is to suggest that the conditions which gave rise to our physical world at the moment of the big bang were predetermined by some laws of physics that existed prior to the big bang. We have no reason at all to believe that this is correct.

It also seems improbable that the laws of physics as we know them are absolute. Life as we know it is based on some very precarious physical properties of matter - such as the physics of the water molecule and hydrogen bonding which permits just the right balance between keeping molecules together and letting them break apart to form something else - a property which seems to be necessary for life to exist. The explanation might be "this is just the way it is" (ie. incredible luck). Another plausible explanation would be: "this question can only be asked in a universe whose laws of physics permit the development of intelligent life-forms" (ie. the anthropomorphic principle).

So based on the evidence that 1. the universe, as we know it, had a beginning and 2. the improbability of good luck, one could conclude that there is some evidence that the laws of physics as we know them are not absolute.

Calculex

 

[Prometheus]

So to suggest that the laws of physics are absolute is to suggest that the conditions which gave rise to our physical world at the moment of the big bang were predetermined by some laws of physics that existed prior to the big bang. We have no reason at all to believe that this is correct.

We have no reason to believe that this is incorrect. You say "we" as though you speak for all people, and you say "no" as though you speak for all information. Can you elaborate?

 

[juju]

Hi all,

The laws of physics can be, in one sense, both absolute and relative. The basic kernal upon which the laws are built can be the same everywhere. The structures that arise from this kernal can be variable.

I believe that string theory incorporates this view.

In reference to the big bang, it can be seen as a super dupper black hole being exploded by a fluctuation called the inflation field.

juju

 

[bino]

"we were not created in the likeness of god, god was created in the likeness of us."

 

[Calculex]

We have no reason to believe that this is incorrect.

You are quite right. We lack sufficient information to say one way or the other whether the laws of physics are absolute. But we have some reason not to confidently assume they are.

Of course there may be some laws of physics that are absolute and some that aren't. Those laws that relate to particular particles for example might depend on the conditions during the big bang. On the other hand, gravity might be a universal law.

You say "we" as though you speak for all people, and you say "no" as though you speak for all information. Can you elaborate?

Perhaps I should have said: "There is no reason to believe that this is correct". If you aren't able to say whether the laws of physics are absolute, is there any reason to conclude that they are?

Calculex

 

[Prometheus]

Perhaps I should have said: "There is no reason to believe that this is correct".

I would not say that there is NO reason.

If you aren't able to say whether the laws of physics are absolute, is there any reason to conclude that they are?

Of course not. However, this is different from the above. Above, you say NO REASON TO BELIEVE. Here, you are saying CONCLUDE. There is certainly some reason to believe, but certainly not to conclude.

 

[aychamo]

Proof:

There is nothing at all to suggest the existence of a god.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe in any such god.

 

[Chronos]

Pardon my intrusion. I see no evidence that can possibly 'prove' either assertion.. ie, you can no more prove 1 = 1 than prove 1 <> 1. Given that proposition permits a universe that does not forbid a free will choice, I prefer 1 = 1.

 

[Garth]

Proof:

There is nothing at all to suggest the existence of a god.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe in any such god.

Really?
My post #10 on the thread "God"

I find there are four questions that science raises that point beyond science, from physics to metaphysics.
The questions are:
1. Why does the universe bother to exist? As Stephen Hawking has said, “Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer the question: Why does the universe bother to exist?” He went on to ask, when contemplating the Theory of Everything, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”
2. Why is the universe so fruitful, that is propitious for life? The Anthropic question, “The world is as it is because we are” (S.H.) but why?
3. Why can we solve the mysteries of the universe by scribbling on the backs of old envelopes in an armchair?” (As Einstein is said to have done.) “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” (A.E.)
4. How is that atoms, after bouncing around together for billions of years in a Newtonian way, should produce life and a consciousness capable of asking such awkward questions?

These questions may be given a deistic, theistic or atheist answer; each requires a stance of faith, either in the existence of God or the non-existence of God. The existential choice is yours…

Garth

 

[aychamo]

Really?
My post #10 on the thread "God"

Garth

Those four questions in no way suggest the existence of a god. Just because human beings can't answer a question doesn't in any way suggest that a god exists. One's incredulity doesn't imply a god.

Sorry :)

By the way, doesn't your question #3 contradict the other 3?

 

[Garth]

aychamo - You are free to make that choice in answer to those questions, others may choose otherwise.
- Garth

 

[GlassDraggon]

Assuming there are infinite dimensions outside of our own it would seem logical that we could not possibly work off our our "laws". Imagine for a moment a dimension where there are commonalities (like gravity) but none of our conventional laws hold true- matter and energy can cease to exist ETC.

If this were true then there is nothing stopping us from realizing that we could merely be a reflection of such a dimension. Our reflection would be a little bit distorted and would be less realistic. So OUR god would be the parent dimension, their god would be their governing laws (or whatever else), and there would still have to be an ultimate god which created the dimensions.

I'm sure someone will smash this "mirror" theory. But the fact remains that: god cannot be governed by the laws of our dimension.

 

[juju]

HI all,

Your existence is a proof of the possibility of the existence of "God", but not a proof of his/her/its actuality.

However, since you exist, there may exist beings of greater experience and longevity. If this is true, there exists at least one being of maximum experience and longevity. This might be "God".

In the same manner there would exist at least one being of maximum wisdom, one being of maximum power, etc.

Collectively this set of beings contains all the attributes of what would be considered "God".

juju

 

[alexkerhead]

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

God is a metaphore of all the acquired information contained in the known universe.

 

[Prometheus]

aychamo - You are free to make that choice in answer to those questions, others may choose otherwise.
- Garth

God, the daughter of little green trinkies, created the universe last night. As proof, can you show me the night before last? I didn't think so.

You are free to make that choice in answer to those questions, others may choose otherwise.

 

[Taoist]

nice group...! My favorite subject especially when the "4 questions' posted by Garth


The questions are:
1. Why does the universe bother to exist? As Stephen Hawking has said, “Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer the question: Why does the universe bother to exist?” He went on to ask, when contemplating the Theory of Everything, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”
2. Why is the universe so fruitful, that is propitious for life? The Anthropic question, “The world is as it is because we are” (S.H.) but why?
3. Why can we solve the mysteries of the universe by scribbling on the backs of old envelopes in an armchair?” (As Einstein is said to have done.) “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” (A.E.)
4. How is that atoms, after bouncing around together for billions of years in a Newtonian way, should produce life and a consciousness capable of asking such awkward questions?

these have merit... but simple when time is taken into account. Look at that fourth demension and see what has evolved in its explicit form and you can see evolution as we see history.

Yes ... time need be applied when looking at the beginning. The sense of what are we? Some percieve us as Godly. Or of like harmony; of the one.

To find out Einstein says we need to exceed "c." I say we can.

Believing God exists as an individual or tangible form is not one I can fathom. Knowing the existence of balanced understanding, at least in a metaphysical sense has seduced me to believe. Einstein and especially Tesla had this same problem.

Is there an answer to whether God exists? It is purely subjective to what each said opinion has in belief and has been exposed to...

Stephen is sharp but his question was spent for a specific crowd. Ask him and see what he says!

 

[Garth]

God, the daughter of little green trinkies, created the universe last night. As proof, can you show me the night before last? I didn't think so.

You are free to make that choice in answer to those questions, others may choose otherwise.

But as Uncle Albert said, "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” (A.E.)

Garth

 

[TENYEARS]

Uncle Albert was being nice, god had no choice except the choices we make if of course you really consider these things as choices. If I go back in time to the beging of this post and replay it a 1000 times do you think the outcome would be any different? Yet does not my senssory input get analyzed at every moment to make the best possible choice my organism can make with it's surrounding environment. Life is a choiceless choice which can happen no other way. I am cheating though, my knowledge came to me before this deduction using external examples. I have seen the god of mosses and yet I am a fool just like you who struggles to understand my destiny. How can this be? I can see the future the thing you debate so greatly and yet my life is turned upside down. I have understood the creation of the universe and that which all things are made and yet I have no nobel prize. I experince one thing which no one may ever own, certainty in the midst of uncertainty. Sometimes to understand you must walk completely away from everything only to return to find the answer, everywhere.

 

[Garth]

TENYEARS - Uncle Albert was being nice to whom?

But as he said, "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." (A.E.)

Garth

 

[Prometheus]

But as Uncle Albert said, "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” (A.E.)

Garth

I did not read this before. I think that it is an excellent statement.

 

[ballooza]

Ey, GlassDragon...
tell me more about this mirror theory, please