It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smartest Man in America says God exists

page: 16
40
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
firstly, just to comment

Originally posted by ken10
I'm pretty sure most intelligent people declare themselves Atheist/Agnostic.

Einstein for one.
agreed


Originally posted by SLAYER69
"God doesn't play dice with the universe "

Einstein

many other Einstein quotes to show that this much touted quote was just a somewhat cynical figure of speech (related to the uncertainties of Quantum Physics), not a declaration of faith. There is a certain irony here in that this quote is being used about another person's "theory of everything" that might indeed prove that ... God does not play dice.

anyway, an example of Einstein's atheist beliefs.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

and, are we not missing that important part from the OP that tells us?


just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind.


This makes us all part of this entire Universe that his Cognitive-Theoretic Model describes, each doing our part towards the "divine work" of its building and breaking. Perhaps this means that when all those responsible for these parts discover how to work together, we achieve ??? or do we ??? or ???

Certainly that thought is not foreign to many theologies/philosophies, but following Socratic questioning we have an awful lot of other questions to figure out and things we think we know that need confirming and ....

I think I need an IQ upgrade to get my head around this before I can criticise Christopher Michael Langan, but have added a few more threads to my thinking directions.




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
I note after 16 pages there has been no new evidence to support the god idea.
Indeed the alleged 'smartest' man in the OP is simply expressing his 'beliefs' as in common with any other rational minded person it would of course be impossible to present his case as fact.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Here is a documentary style program of Christopher, near the beginning the claim is made he is actually the smartest man in the *world*. Can just imagine how the thread title 'Smartest Man in the World says God exists' would have gone over lol!





Anyways, haven't watched all of it myself yet. Feel free to leave opinions on these videos as well. There is part 2 on youtube also. First video didn't embed properly, but link works anyways.



edit on 31-12-2012 by Runciter33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


How about you ask God do design a jet? Good luck with that. Design is a human concept. Intelligence is a human concept. God is a concept also of human design, contrived, designed and planned like a jet. So is evolution. So is natural selection. All ideas, some just have logic and evidence to back them up.

If everything needs a designer, than that designer would also need a designer. This is a common problem that arises from these claims. It forces the advocates of the God theory to invent even stranger guesses regarding outer-universe physics and laws.

Who designed the intelligent designer? Did he appear out of thin air?


The trouble with this conversation is the reference to God. I don't believe in the "man made religious" interpretation of that either. We aren't going to all sit around in Heaven on puffy clouds eating ice-cream from golden plates. So please don't put me in that box. And I don't use "logic" and "some evidence" to explain where life "poofed" from and "evolved". Logic is not proof either.

I think interstellar travel would be necessary to spread life and the perfect cargo is sacks of seeds and cryo embryos. Terra Forming, like?

I think that procreation is the way for life to multiply and the seed, egg, and womb are the proof of that. If I never saw a man and woman make a baby I would not understand that. So where do the "original" people come from?

My answer to that is "somewhere else".

On making Gods, bees do it. They make "queens" all the time. They do it with "royal jelly".


I'm sorry. I know thats not proof of anything. Life is the proof, in my opinion. I can't show you the "Interstellar Ark" ("God's" Airplane?) that brought it here however, so its wasted rhetoric.

Thank you for being civil about this. Its good to dust off the "excuses" and "omissions" once in a while.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
This equation is what you're all looking for;

QAa = − i[∇a,C] ,
Qχa = i 1
2 [∇b, Fba] + i[C, χa − i 1
2pa
eC
] + pa(B + i 1
2p · A) ,
QCe = − 2i(B + i 1
2p · A) ,
QD = − i
h
∇a, χa − i 1
2pa
eC
i
+ i[C,D] ,
QC = iC2 ,
QB = − 1
2pa [∇a,C] .

 = iˇxAˇpA − ix−p+ − ixαpα +M−′+ + CβαMα′β ,
J+α = iˇp+ˇxα − iˇx+ˇpα + ip+xα +M+α′ ,
J−+ = −iˇx−ˇp+ + iˇx+ˇp− − ix−p+ +M−′+ ,
Jαβ = −iˇx(α ˇpβ) − ix(αpβ) +Mαβ′ +Mα′β ,
J−α = −iˇx−ˇpα + iˇxα ˇp− − ix−pα + ixαp− +M−′α +
1
ˇp+Qα′ ,
p− = −
1
2ˇp+
(pa
2 +M2 + 2p+ˇp− + 2pα ˇpα) ,
Qα′ = Mα′
apa +Mα′mM +Mα′+ˇp− +Mα′−′p+ −Mα′β ˇpβ −Mα′β′pβ .

My pleasure.
edit on 31-12-2012 by koagula because: I enjoy the act of editting



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Runciter33
 


I'll admit I haven't read the full thread and I guess someone has probably already said as much but the answer is in the very first line of his quote...

""I Believe in the theory of evolution, but I Believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory.""

Just because someone believes in something doesn't make it "gospel truth".. (haha see what I did there? I made a funny)

He can be smart, he can be the brainiest man ever to live but his belief doesn't constitute "proof" to anything.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by koagula
 

Nothing useful to offer to the debate then?
Kind of trollish if you were to ask me, but mildly amusing so I won't break my heart or worry that any argument of mine has been undermined by your post.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
reply to post by Runciter33
 


He can be smart, he can be the brainiest man ever to live but his belief doesn't constitute "proof" to anything.


Exactly, in the same way the greatest of religious zealots on ATS can prove nothing.
If they all stated it was belief and faith based I would have no concern, it just gets tiresome when said beliefs are incorrectly stated as fact.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by koagula
 

Nothing useful to offer to the debate then?
Kind of trollish if you were to ask me, but mildly amusing so I won't break my heart or worry that any argument of mine has been undermined by your post.



It's the mathematics of string theory... I think it's actually quite fitting for this thread.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by koagula

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by koagula
 

Nothing useful to offer to the debate then?
Kind of trollish if you were to ask me, but mildly amusing so I won't break my heart or worry that any argument of mine has been undermined by your post.



It's the mathematics of string theory... I think it's actually quite fitting for this thread.

If followed up with some personal interpretation to support your argument I'd be mildly interested, but presented as you have I shall ignore it as insignificant to the debate.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
reply to post by Runciter33
 


I'll admit I haven't read the full thread and I guess someone has probably already said as much but the answer is in the very first line of his quote...

""I Believe in the theory of evolution, but I Believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory.""

Just because someone believes in something doesn't make it "gospel truth".. (haha see what I did there? I made a funny)

He can be smart, he can be the brainiest man ever to live but his belief doesn't constitute "proof" to anything.







Exactly.

Why is this guys opinion any more valid than anyone else's?

Who cares...



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by koagula

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by koagula
 

Nothing useful to offer to the debate then?
Kind of trollish if you were to ask me, but mildly amusing so I won't break my heart or worry that any argument of mine has been undermined by your post.



It's the mathematics of string theory... I think it's actually quite fitting for this thread.

If followed up with some personal interpretation to support your argument I'd be mildly interested, but presented as you have I shall ignore it as insignificant to the debate.



If the universe is a fractal, then, mathematically, the smartest person in America makes some sense here, in that we are all a part of GOD. However, is GOD an I-phone application with an unknown function or the creator of this app? If the latter, then we are only a product of its mind, not its being.
edit on 31-12-2012 by koagula because: Forgot to add that I only meant to use the idea of an i-phone app as an analogy

edit on 31-12-2012 by koagula because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
So, the "Smartest man in America" is just another intelligent design proponent thinking religious allegory can form some type of pseudo scientific mix along with hard science.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by koagula

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by koagula

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by koagula
 

Nothing useful to offer to the debate then?
Kind of trollish if you were to ask me, but mildly amusing so I won't break my heart or worry that any argument of mine has been undermined by your post.



It's the mathematics of string theory... I think it's actually quite fitting for this thread.

If followed up with some personal interpretation to support your argument I'd be mildly interested, but presented as you have I shall ignore it as insignificant to the debate.



If the universe is a fractal, then, mathematically, the smartest person in America makes some sense here, in that we are all a part of GOD. However, is GOD an I-phone application with an unknown function or the creator of this app? If the latter, then we are only a product of its mind, not its being.
edit on 31-12-2012 by koagula because: Forgot to add that I only meant to use the idea of an i-phone app as an analogy

edit on 31-12-2012 by koagula because: (no reason given)


Interesting thoughts but again, just faith based argument relying on one or more pre-defined assumptions.
No different to the religious zealot who uses scripture to support their argument. One has to assume the scriptures are valid for the argument to be made.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Morg234
So, the "Smartest man in America" is just another intelligent design proponent thinking religious allegory can form some type of pseudo scientific mix along with hard science.

It would appear that way.
Either way though, the guy had the decency to state it was his 'belief' as opposed to fact - it is a pity many passionately religious types are unable to follow suit.
edit on 31-12-2012 by grainofsand because: To add 2nd line



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   


He said it. I was focused on the "God Doesn't Play Dice" part myself..
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


It is part of the lexicon, same as why those who are irreligious will say "oh my god" or "god knows" in general conversation. Like we say "broken heart" or "I know in my heart". Retained, antiquated phrases that are nonetheless scientifically outmoded.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Morg234
 


Do you have another explanation for the whole "order despite chaos" scheme that managed to create everything we see today from a random explosion with absolutely no intelligence steering the pieces into the knife-edge balance that could so easily have ended in a very bad way?

That isn't how chaos works. Everything you see happened despite astronomical odds. That's throwing 15 aces into a five hundred quintillion card deck (15/500,000,000,000,000,000,000) throwing the cards in the air, picking them up in random order, and pulling all fifteen aces straight from the top of the deck. And in all actuality, I am literally understating it. The odds were much, much worse than that.

And somehow, every single thing that could have gone wrong - did not. Chaos means everything that can go wrong, WILL go wrong. There's nothing to keep it from doing so. And yet you say there isn't some sort of intelligence in the universe? I am not saying it is "God". I personally do not believe it to be a god. I don't believe it to be any sort of conscious entity.

But to say that everything happened by chance is nothing short of asinine.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Greetings, there is much to consider regarding our relationship with what many term "God". From the materials that I have considered over the last seven years or so, god, or Prime Creator was/is the creative spark. We are the fragments of that whole. As best I could, I explained this concept on the Home Page of my website here for those interested; www.focusonrecovery.net...



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Morg234
 


But to say that everything happened by chance is nothing short of asinine.

To assert that everything is the result of an unknown divine/energy could be equally considered asinine.
People used to blame earthquakes on gods until we got a better grasp of geological processes.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 



To assert that everything is the result of an unknown divine/energy could be equally considered asinine.


It could be, if you have a better suggestion. But if it isn't chaos, which I have shown, it can only be order, which by definition requires a certain degree of intent. I would argue that consciousness doesn't necessarily exist in such a case because a robot isn't "conscious", and yet it is fully capable of intent. The true divinity comes from energy whose very nature is to function in this manner.


People used to blame earthquakes on gods until we got a better grasp of geological processes.


I never said it was a god. I have already made this clear. The mere possibility that this principle is available for our disposal disagrees with the existence of a god. Some may choose to call it a god, but that has more to do with their comprehension and comfort in the matter than anything else.
edit on 31-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join