Philosophy Discussion Forums

God has a creation and it has been evolving for millions of years. On Earth, there is evidence that God, for some reason(s), finds a way to memorize how things were millions of years ago: he puts things into fossiles. Now as we humans appear, we get to discover God's memories. This is evidence that the mind of God is at work right now as it continues the process of storing memories for the future to see. Now there obviously are reasons why people memorize things. Please speculate as to why God would do the same and give us the ability to do the same. Maybe God isn't memorizing things because the process of memorizing is not deliberate? But computers are known to have memories (people say so) and they aren't deliberate for sure, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Also, it becomes apparent that memories we have of the natural past aren't the same as memories we have experienced ourselves. Some memories, the deduced ones, aren't our personal memories but we often treat them as such. The history of our species for instance isn't anyone's personal memory. So, how can we, as a species, have our own past if it really belongs to God. Furthermore, if our future is bound to become a possession of God, how can we not be very concerned with what these memories will say about us? By not believing in God, we may avoid concerning ourselves with God's memories of us, and simply concern ourselves with trying to find out how to dismiss God's possessions or make the false claim that we remember millions of years from now. Where do you stand on this question? Thank you.

This is a best an over simplification of the term "memories". The term refers to the conscious experience or reliving in consciousness of past events. Computers have Memory, not memories. Computers are not as yet conscious. They can hold binary code in MEMORY and then retrieve that binary code as needed to accomplish a task. That is perhaps analogous to remembering but it's not at all the same thing. The fossil records are not memories, they are simply artifacts of events that occurred. When you look at a fossil you may imagine what the creature who it belonged to looked like or you may speculate as to how it lived but it is in no way a memory, claiming so is just a grossly improper use of the term.

"memories". The term refers to the conscious experience or reliving in consciousness of past events

Are you suggesting that only humans can remember? Animals cannot as many claim that they have no consciousness of past events?
In my experience, this is an atheist argument, but others would surely disagree.

They can hold binary code in MEMORY and then retrieve that binary code as needed to accomplish a task. That is perhaps analogous to remembering but it's not at all the same thing.

What you are saying here is animals/computers are almost there in being able to remember but something (which maybe only you can see as you do not explain your point?) actually prevent us from calling what they do memorizing?
Perhaps that something is free will?

The fossil records are not memories, they are simply artifacts of events that occurred

Do you think that when you memorize anything it leaves no artifacts, no nothing in your mind, in your brain?

When you look at a fossil you may imagine what the creature who it belonged to looked like or you may speculate as to how it lived but it is in no way a memory

Ha! So you believe that the dinosaurs are a product of human imagination, just like any good movie? This past is no past; it is make belief? Since almost no one remembers world war I anymore then that too is becoming a make belief event? Right? Thanks for your notion of what a memory is. Even if it is (in my opinion) ridiculous, at least it is an attempt at grasping the concept. I agree from it that the definition of the word memory is put in question when we use that same word to describe how robots remember.

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:On Earth, there is evidence that God, for some reason(s), finds a way to memorize how things were millions of years ago: he puts things into fossiles. Now as we humans appear, we get to discover God's memories.

So when we look at fossils, it's like browsing through God's photo album. What about the bits of rock that are only bits of rock, are they just empty pages waiting to be filled?

We remember things based off our experiences and innate (in-built "memories"). We are able to map the world because we can imagine ourselves in different positions and living in different time periods. Even my memories of yesterday are only present "in the now" because I don't travel back in time and experience the item exactly as it was.

Memory is plastic. If "God" has a memory should you then assume it is plastic? I guess this would say to you that the past can change and that nothing is "written in stone"? Or at the very least it is alterable to some degree?

I would also argue that memorizing is deliberate if not always intended. Meaning, I have goals and I set my focus toward said goals. By doing so I focus my attention on certain items and commit them to memory (if I deem them useful.) Unconsciously something may correlate enough to rouse my conscious attention.

note: Just for the record if I was to use the term "God" in an honest way it would be in reference to the above kind of "unconscious correlation brought into conscious attention", in a simplistic sense at least! That said I tried to put myself in the position of a theist, to some degree, in order to respond to your question in as helpful a way as I could. My friend studied archeology and I remember he mentioned something along these lines. I am guessing it is a common exercise passed around lecture halls for budding archeologists to mull over?