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.