P&N Religion Poll

[JohnOfSheffield]

wow, this poll is so bs. i know there's at least 15 jewish people here and about 5 muslims. i bet they're all voting agnostic lol. you cannot fool me.

i voted jewish btw

Why would you vote Jewish, you hate Jews.

 

[SandEagle]

Why would you vote Jewish, you hate Jews.

frackin shill. go back to being a fry chef loser

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

frackin shill. go back to being a fry chef loser

Wow, this is intelligent discourse in your part of the world?

You poor thing.

 

[palehorse]

Not really, this is general biochemistry and as such applicable only to that, what QT has to say on the issue matters not at all because it's observable in real time and needs no further explanation.

It most surely ends when the electrochemical signal has reached the recipient neuron, that is how the communication works. I honestly don't think you realise the implications of your proposition, QT doesn't dwell on these matters at all, it doesn't expand on interconnectivity when it comes to every nerve endings signal to and from the originating neurons.

I'm going to try to reason this out with a statement. QT does not deal with interconnections, it deals with inter dimensional features of our universe and our base neurological activity which is necessary for you to breathe, for your heart to beat, for your entire biological mess of a nerve system controlled by a biochemical apparatus that you know as your brain is NOT a function that transcends our own dimension, it doesn't even transcend beyond it's calling neurons.

I'm trying real hard not to sound condescending while putting it in a form of language that can be easily understood by most (not by Abwx, he is beyond all hope).

Not every bloody thought is an echo to the inter dimensional universe.

You cannot be condescending when you're completely wrong.

First and foremost, the entire quantum mechanical phenomenon of superposition (or entanglement, specifically) describes the interconnection (or correlation) of paired electrons, photons, and molecules separated by any distance, so it is entirely incorrect to say that QT itself has nothing at all to do with interconnectivity.

Second, Molecular Biology and chemistry are built upon physics, not vice versa. Once you get down to the molecular, atomic, and sub-atomic levels, the conversation MUST shift from biology and chemistry to physics.

With that in mind, those chemicals and other biological processes you keep mentioning -- the ones that comprise "a thought" -- what are they made of at their most basic level? IOW, what are their "building blocks"? How about the bonds that hold those blocks together? When the chemical reactions occur, what is released?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You cannot be condescending when you're completely wrong.

First and foremost, the entire quantum mechanical phenomenon of superposition (or entanglement, specifically) describes the interconnection (and instantaneous communication) of paired photons separated by any distance, so it is entirely incorrect to say that QT has nothing at all to do with interconnectivity.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with this issue, photons are not electrochemical signals traveling through preconstructed pathways in a biological apparatus.

Second, Molecular Biology and chemistry are built upon physics, not vice versa. Once you get down to the molecular, atomic, and sub-atomic levels, the conversation MUST shift from biology and chemistry to physics.

With that in mind, those chemicals and other biological processes you keep mentioning -- the ones that comprise "a thought" -- what are they made of at their most basic level? IOW, what are their "building blocks"? How about the bonds that hold those blocks together? When the chemical reactions occur, what is released?

I have NO idea what you are discussing but it's clearly not related to this discussion AT ALL. There is absolutely no need to interpret electrochemical systems in biological pathways any further than it's function and even if you do, how would it refer to QT?

Get back to me when you have a general idea of basic neurology and can find an implication of it into QT because as hard as i try, i cannot do that and i doubt you can either, you are having a completely different discussion that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Even IF we research the very constituents of all of this (and this has been done too) it still doesn't show any effect outside of the intended effect in the biological apparatus, it's usage is entirely isolated and not something you can measure in any way apart from direct measurement, it has no other effect and no other consequence.

 

[palehorse]

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with this issue, photons are not electrochemical signals traveling through preconstructed pathways in a biological apparatus.

First, I didn't say that it did -- I was using that example to refute your claim that QT itself has nothing at all to do with interconnectivity.

For the record, though, entanglement theory has also been demonstrated with electrons and molecules (not just photons).

I have NO idea what you are discussing but it's clearly not related to this discussion AT ALL. There is absolutely no need to interpret electrochemical systems in biological pathways any further than it's function and even if you do, how would it refer to QT?

Get back to me when you have a general idea of basic neurology and can find an implication of it into QT because as hard as i try, i cannot do that and i doubt you can either, you are having a completely different discussion that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Even IF we research the very constituents of all of this (and this has been done too) it still doesn't show any effect outside of the intended effect in the biological apparatus, it's usage is entirely isolated and not something you can measure in any way apart from direct measurement, it has no other effect and no other consequence.

I simply disagree and believe there is enough observable data to demonstrate a direct connection between all energy in the universe -- to include the energy involved in the thought process, of course.

In order to comprehend the connections I'm trying (and apparently failing) to articulate, one must first grasp quantum mechanical concepts and some core components of modern string theory as well.

Stay safe bro...

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Are people responding to this poll seriously? Could the Anandtech P&N crowd really be majority atheist-agnostic with atheism coming in at first place?

 

[cybrsage]

Are people responding to this poll seriously? Could the Anandtech P&N crowd really be majority atheist-agnostic with atheism coming in at first place?

I think it is probably correct. It is also heavily left leaning, as shown in another poll. Not that the two are linked.

 

[Infohawk]

Are people responding to this poll seriously? Could the Anandtech P&N crowd really be majority atheist-agnostic with atheism coming in at first place?

Is it so surprising that on a tech board most people would be atheist or agnostic? So far the only admitted liar is SandEagle.

 

[epidemis]

I'm gnostic atheist. I posit that it's the only rational attitude to have? Why? Because gods are by definition meta-physical beings and are thus not "falsifiable". If a god existed he would have to follow rules (patterns) but then he wouldn't be a god, just a really powerful guy. Agnosticism is a contradiction in terms and can be logically proven wrong.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm gnostic atheist. I posit that it's the only rational attitude to have? Why? Because gods are by definition meta-physical beings and are thus not "falsifiable". If a god existed he would have to follow rules (patterns) but then he wouldn't be a god, just a really powerful guy. Agnosticism is a contradiction in terms and can be logically proven wrong.

It is logically incoherent to claim that you know an unfalsifiable proposition to be false, but that is precisely what you have suggested.

 

[epidemis]

Heh, did you read anything I wrote? It's only 2 lines, and I shouldn't be too hard.
Gods can't exist because if they existed they wouldn't be gods. The claim is logically deducated from the very definition of "gods"

 

[cybrsage]

Heh, did you read anything I wrote? It's only 2 lines, and I shouldn't be too hard.
Gods can't exist because if they existed they wouldn't be gods. The claim is logically deducated from the very definition of "gods"

Actually, a high order logic program ran the question of if an Abrahamic style god could exist (the omnipotent, omnipresent, etc type of god), and it only found one small problem with the logic. There was an unsupported claim in the logic. I will search for it and post it here as an edit when I find it.

EDIT: Found it

http://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/ontological-computational.pdf


In layman's terms it says:
1.We conceive of God as a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2.This being than which no greater can be conceived either exists in the mind alone or both in the mind and in reality.
3.Assume that this being than which no greater can be conceived exists in the mind alone.
a.Existing both in the mind and in reality is greater than existing solely in the mind.
b.This being, existing in the mind alone, can also be conceived to exist in reality.
c.This being existing in the mind alone is not therefore the being than which no greater can be conceived. (See statement 1 above.)
4.Therefore, this being than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality as well as exists in the mind.

It is short, but hard reading, and requires a LOT of logic.


The full on logic is included in that link, but they expose the only weakness in the logic. It is this:


"if the conceivable thing than which nothing greater is conceivable fails to exist, then something greater than it is conceivable." This claim has no secondary support. It assumes our ability to conceive is unlimited. We do not know if this is true or false, and there is no way to know.

 

[spittledip]

"if the conceivable thing than which nothing greater is conceivable fails to exist, then something greater than it is conceivable." This claim has no secondary support. It assumes our ability to conceive is unlimited. We do not know if this is true or false, and there is no way to know.

Doesn't this make the whole thing useless?

 

[Aikouka]

1.We conceive of God as a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2.This being than which no greater can be conceived either exists in the mind alone or both in the mind and in reality.
3.Assume that this being than which no greater can be conceived exists in the mind alone.
a.Existing both in the mind and in reality is greater than existing solely in the mind.
b.This being, existing in the mind alone, can also be conceived to exist in reality.
c.This being existing in the mind alone is not therefore the being than which no greater can be conceived. (See statement 1 above.)
4.Therefore, this being than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality as well as exists in the mind.

I'm not a huge fan of this "proof". My issue is in statement #1, and how it's trying to use something that we cannot truly define (or as they say, "conceive") as a truth in a proof. :|

 

[cybrsage]

Doesn't this make the whole thing useless?

No, since there are very few things we accept which can fulfill all the requirement to be fully logic based.

It shows there is a minor issue, not a major issue, with the logic used to say God exists. Basically, it is saying it is not illogical to say God exists.

 

[cybrsage]

I'm not a huge fan of this "proof". My issue is in statement #1, and how it's trying to use something that we cannot truly define (or as they say, "conceive") as a truth in a proof. :|

It is assuming we are talking about an Abrahamic god. This god, by definition, is the greatest thing which can possibly exist. It is a description of the item under discussion....and would basically be like saying:

1. We conceive of gravity as being the bending of space-time.

 

[Aikouka]

It is assuming we are talking about an Abrahamic god. This god, by definition, is the greatest thing which can possibly exist. It is a description of the item under discussion....and would basically be like saying:

1. We conceive of gravity as being the bending of space-time.

The issue is that the description has absolutely no merit to it at all. You can't use pure conjecture as a fact in a proof!

 

[Jaskalas]

Are people responding to this poll seriously? Could the Anandtech P&N crowd really be majority atheist-agnostic with atheism coming in at first place?

I answered pretty clearly for my poll choice.

 

[Paul98]

Actually, a high order logic program ran the question of if an Abrahamic style god could exist (the omnipotent, omnipresent, etc type of god), and it only found one small problem with the logic. There was an unsupported claim in the logic. I will search for it and post it here as an edit when I find it.

EDIT: Found it

http://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/ontological-computational.pdf


In layman's terms it says:
1.We conceive of God as a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2.This being than which no greater can be conceived either exists in the mind alone or both in the mind and in reality.
3.Assume that this being than which no greater can be conceived exists in the mind alone.
a.Existing both in the mind and in reality is greater than existing solely in the mind.
b.This being, existing in the mind alone, can also be conceived to exist in reality.
c.This being existing in the mind alone is not therefore the being than which no greater can be conceived. (See statement 1 above.)
4.Therefore, this being than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality as well as exists in the mind.

It is short, but hard reading, and requires a LOT of logic.


The full on logic is included in that link, but they expose the only weakness in the logic. It is this:


"if the conceivable thing than which nothing greater is conceivable fails to exist, then something greater than it is conceivable." This claim has no secondary support. It assumes our ability to conceive is unlimited. We do not know if this is true or false, and there is no way to know.

That "proof" is pure BS.

 

[actuarial]

It is assuming we are talking about an Abrahamic god. This god, by definition, is the greatest thing which can possibly exist. It is a description of the item under discussion....and would basically be like saying:

1. We conceive of gravity as being the bending of space-time.

You're mixing conceivable and possible, which are two entirely different concepts.

In addition, why is something that exists greater than something that is only an idea? I would argue the idea attached to things is almost always greater than the thing itself.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This god, by definition, is the greatest thing which can possibly exist.

Greatest what? Is he the greatest hair stylist? That's a tough sell, seeing as how my hairstylist is pretty amazing.

Is he the greatest thief? What has he stolen? Anything?

He's never been president so he can't possibly be the greatest president. How is he at bicycling? Is he the greatest bicyclist? Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France with only one testicle. That's pretty great. Certainly a bicyclist who has won the Tour de France is greater than a bicyclist that hasn't, no? Should we conclude that Lance Armstrong is greater than god?

 

[cybrsage]

The issue is that the description has absolutely no merit to it at all. You can't use pure conjecture as a fact in a proof!

You must define the question prior to being able to answer the question, yes? I assume you said yes, since no is ludicrous.

Moving on, since the study was specific to the Abramamic gods, we would need to use the definition of said gods. It would be quite stupid to use an incorrect definition when discussion a specific type of god.

The first line is simply providing the subject which is being discussed. Without it, there can be no discussion.

 

[cybrsage]

That "proof" is pure BS.

Please quote which part of the Standford paper you claim is BS and why. If there are multiple parts, post them.

 

[cybrsage]

Greatest what?

Read the Standford paper, not my very basic and brief layman's explaination. It is in there.

You're mixing conceivable and possible, which are two entirely different concepts.

In addition, why is something that exists greater than something that is only an idea? I would argue the idea attached to things is almost always greater than the thing itself.

It is in the Standford paper.



I think you all are focusing on my very brief, layman's explaination and acting like it is a thesis paper. All of what you guys are asking about and disliking are addressed in the Stanford Paper.