Smartest Man in America says God exists

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by NihilistSanta

 

Both our avatars are in direct conflict . Therefore, since we are here sharing the same "domain", I guess we can't be Gods by your analysis. Oh well.

edit on 1-1-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

Actually you bring up a good point about the cyber "domain" this is I think a good comparison to Langan's theory of mind/universe. We interact with this board and have a representation here but here is not actually anywhere but a collective experience that is creating it distributed over various servers and networks. Just as your mind is more than your brain something intangible. I can see how the man views the universe as a giant mind. All the parts similar to neurons and cells firing away to create something that cant be quantified which is thought and our perspective on this existence or our minds.

I saw a picture recently, not sure if someone else already mentioned it and im not sure if it was just an artist rendering or what but the correlation was between the shape and dimensions of the visible universe and that of a neuron. This could be purely coincidental but it does cause one to consider the implications.

reply to post by Runciter33


I read his CMTU and was interested what he said about intelligent design:

The CTMU says that by its self-generative, self-selective nature, which follows directly from the
analytic requirement of self-containment, reality is its own “designer”. Other features of the
generative grammar of reality imply that reality possesses certain logical properties traditionally
regarded as theological or spiritual, and that to this extent, the self-designing aspect of reality is
open to a theological or spiritual interpretation. The CTMU, being a logical theory, does not
attempt to force such an interpretation down anyone’s throat; not all semantic permutations need
affect theoretical structure. What it does do, however, is render any anti-theological interpretation
a priori false, and ensures that whatever interpretation one chooses accommodates the existence
of an “intelligent designer”…namely, reality itself. In light of the CTMU, this is now a matter more
of logic than of taste.

I would have to agree that reality is it's own "designer," insofar as reality or the universe is what creates reality. This of course seems obvious and is tautological but doesn't necessarily require a prime mover such as a God in my opinion, unless God is the universe. However we might as well stick to our tautologies and say that the universe is the universe, and everything within it, whether ordered or chaotic, is a product of the universe and not a prime mover or intelligent designer.

Interesting stuff I will have to read some more.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Runciter33

 

I read his CMTU and was interested what he said about intelligent design:

The CTMU says that by its self-generative, self-selective nature, which follows directly from the
analytic requirement of self-containment, reality is its own “designer”. Other features of the
generative grammar of reality imply that reality possesses certain logical properties traditionally
regarded as theological or spiritual, and that to this extent, the self-designing aspect of reality is
open to a theological or spiritual interpretation. The CTMU, being a logical theory, does not
attempt to force such an interpretation down anyone’s throat; not all semantic permutations need
affect theoretical structure. What it does do, however, is render any anti-theological interpretation
a priori false, and ensures that whatever interpretation one chooses accommodates the existence
of an “intelligent designer”…namely, reality itself. In light of the CTMU, this is now a matter more
of logic than of taste.

I would have to agree that reality is it's own "designer," insofar as reality or the universe is what creates reality. This of course seems obvious and is tautological but doesn't necessarily require a prime mover such as a God in my opinion, unless God is the universe. However we might as well stick to our tautologies and say that the universe is the universe, and everything within it, whether ordered or chaotic, is a product of the universe and not a prime mover or intelligent designer.

Interesting stuff I will have to read some more.

First part of the paragraph from abstract;

Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping). Where information is the abstract currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality.

Right of the bat this is different than the majority of peer reviewed type of papers. Basically saying you cannot remove the 'thing in itself' from itself.

A theory of the universe must take into account that there is intelligence able to theorize about the universe. Lol, a catch 22 indeed. "Theory-to-universe mapping", kind of like the wave/particle of Shrodinger's cat where the observer effects that which is observed?

I really find interesting also from the intro page the idea that the universe is not matter/energy based but rather everything is information. DNA encoding computer coding etc.

As for calling it 'Universe' rather than 'God', to me it would be a matter of semantics in one sense. The one problem being 'God' comes with all the religious connotations attached, as well as 'Universe', which to many people is considered primarily from the hard science-materialistic point of view which may hinder it's use for widespread agreement of definition of terms as would 'God' obviously.

I don't necessarily have a problem calling it Universe providing it is considering Intelligent on some level. And to me the fact that we exist infers that such an intelligence would be a 'father' of sorts to us, as it apparently came before, and through evolution is in some way responsible for our existence.

Will now continue reading...

ETA- might as well put the direct link to the PDF of the CTMU for anyone interesting in having a look that hasn't already --->>> megafoundation.org...

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Yes, do read and tell us more, and we'll give you a star every time you use the word "tautological" in order to demonstrate a superior comprehension of the CTMU.

reply to post by Runciter33


Few points to consider:

1. The Smartest Man in America (as defined by the braindead US media goons) has only 195 to 210 IQ. This doesn't bode well for the remaining 290 million americans who technically would be under 195. In essence, that would explain a lot...

2. Being smart and educated are two different things. Knowledge and intelligence are not inherently correlated although combined they are very powerful. This indicator alone doesn't make anyone reliable.

3. Any topic related to the theological nature of exitence will have a great deal of subjectiveness. None of it can be proven in any tangible form, such as the "creation" of Mankind. It is all part of a belief system and will remain as such until someone manages to prove this beyond any doubt. Many good ideas will be provided, but it all remains very philosophical. A truely scientific mind must remain open to all possibilities: Nothing is impossible. But it must be proven to be true.

In conclusion, saying that the smartest man in america says god exists is pretty much as saying "my neighbours says he saw Santa Claus". Sure buddy, just don't have more than 3 beers at a time.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Yes, do read and tell us more, and we'll give you a star every time you use the word "tautological" in order to demonstrate a superior comprehension of the CTMU.

You can't offend me NewAgeMan. I love sarcasm. It looks good on ya. Star for that.

There's no other word I can use other than the term 'tautology.' It's a term in logic. Langon's CMTU is logic-based. He even goes so far to call it supertautological, but I shortened it just for you. Of course you might know that if you read any of it. But no, you're not here to discuss are you. You're hear to preach.



And if picking up a dictionary makes you feel inferior, that's not my problem.

reply to post by Runciter33


He mentions that natural selection is happening on a cosmic scale, which might indicate intelligence, but possibly only because the term 'selection' conjures thoughts of choice or choosing. However there is much chaos to account for, and things happen in the universe that cannot be fathomed as a 'choice' of an intelligent universe. But, of course, our understanding of 'choice,' chaos and intelligence may be way off, and seemingly random events may very well be intentional.

He also says that the universe is perceiving itself, which is true because living things, as a part of the universe, can perceive the universe. Therefore, the universe is perceiving itself. But from our perspective, being on this tiny blue dot, it seems the universe cannot perceive itself very well. So for me anyway it's hard to fathom intelligence anywhere outside of life.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


How can reality be its own designer if our reality is the result of chaos? I wasn't aware that explosions could randomly arrange themselves into molecular patterns that just happen to not only support life forms, but generate life forms capable of adapting to the chaos that spawned them.

Is this how chaos usually behaves? A reality that can adjust itself according to its own shifting factors? This implies intent. Adjustment implies a purpose, a goal. Doesn't this usually mean some form of awareness?

reply to post by Runciter33


My opinion is i'm not going to contradict God. God didn't say he made man from a bowl of primordial soup, he told Moses he made man fully formed and breathed life into him. I'm just going to trust YHVH at his word and leave it because personally, i don't really care. I know all i need to know about salvation, and thats where my mind will focus so that being said.

Cheers.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

My opinion is i'm not going to contradict God. God didn't say he made man from a bowl of primordial soup, he told Moses he made man fully formed and breathed life into him. I'm just going to trust YHVH at his word and leave it because personally, i don't really care. I know all i need to know about salvation, and thats where my mind will focus so that being said.

Well, there you have it. Doesn't really matter what evidence is presented, ignorance will continue unabated.

reply to post by Runciter33

As for calling it 'Universe' rather than 'God', to me it would be a matter of semantics in one sense. The one problem being 'God' comes with all the religious connotations attached, as well as 'Universe', which to many people is considered primarily from the hard science-materialistic point of view which may hinder it's use for widespread agreement of definition of terms as would 'God' obviously.

I don't necessarily have a problem calling it Universe providing it is considering Intelligent on some level. And to me the fact that we exist infers that such an intelligence would be a 'father' of sorts to us, as it apparently came before, and through evolution is in some way responsible for our existence.

I've been following this thread, so, maybe this problem has been discussed in earlier pages, and I missed it. If so, my apologies for being redundant. It seems to me the problem with this theory, and the debate it elicits involves the very nature of "God," since Langan's conclusion proclaims proof of a supreme intelligence that permeates the universe.

Most religious people believe in God, and many believe that god is the guy from the Bible. But when serious and thoughtful minds probe the question, "What is God's nature?" theologians come to the belief that God is the essence of the universe, which is a self manifesting entity, while other believe that God stands outside of existence and the universe, having created it from nothing but a magic "word" and his intention.

Langan's theory of the model of the universe does not go outside of existence for answers, but seeks to find the answers from withing it's universally closed system. To me this is the logical step to take. What is outside of existence can't be hypothesized, as it doesn't exist, in my opinion, and is therefore irrevelant in scientific research, and why some religious people are up in arms about Langan's theory.

Here's a YouTube video in which a religious man does a good job arguing against Langan's theory and comes to the final conclusion that God exists outside of his creation, ie existence, and that God is uneffected by creation. Like a baker is uneffective by the cake he bakes, or a builder is uneffected by the house he builds for someone else, God is not within the creation and his "throne" is not inside of the house he built for "us." (My words)

reply to post by Runciter33


They are simply the left-brain and right-brain labels for the same force that binds all that exists. One is whimsical, the other remains undefined for the same reason the first is whimsical - we simply don't know enough. Is it so shameful to admit that we are pushing ourselves too hard? What's the rush? In time, we will come to understand the exact nature of our being, and the universe that enabled us.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


So you're aware that Christianity is a smorgasbord of ancient pagan beliefs. You're also aware that it's pivotal figure, Jesus Christ, is an amalgamation of pagan archetypes found throughout ancient West Asia, and Europe. So, why is Christianity right, but all other religions wrong?

There is no more "wisdom" in Christianity than in Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism has a much more thoroughly developed polarity between the feminine and masculine principles of existence - something which Christianity attempts to greatly suppresses.

Even in ancient Egyptian religion they understood the spiritual division of soul, spirit, ghost, astral body, and other elements of s spiritual-form much more thoroughly than the Christian idea of body and soul only. They had anywhere from 5 to 9 divisions: the khat, it's khaibit, your ren, the ka and its ba, your ab, etc.

If you studied Hinduism, Buddhism, historical and mythological paganism, Taoism/Confucianism, Wicca and Neo Paganism, Baha'i, and all of the other major world religions, thoroughly, I don't see how you could conclude that the one which steals from all of the others is the only right one. Is it not a collection of all the others? Doesn't that means all of them are right? If Jesus is right, so is Dumuzi, Osiris, Baal, Teshub, Attis, Adonis, and Baldr. If YHVH is right, then so are Enlil, Marduk, Set, Baal, Teshub, Zeus, and Odin.

Which is why I do not have a religion, or a faith. I am familiar enough with all of them to know that there's truly nothing new under the sun. Monotheism is a repackaging of paganism, with an attempt to remove the divine feminine, and limit naturalism. Monotheism is no more "right" then paganism is.

Again, I contend that it comes down to your own personal choice. You want to be a Christian, not because it's the only right choice, but because it's the one you're the most familiar with.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Yes I'm not sure that is possible. I was saying that maybe our idea of chaos, or what appears to be an eternal series of chaotic events, is actually the intent of reality. That through every explosion, supernova, collision, dying star and solar system, the universe is somehow creating itself. It merely appears to be chaotic from our measly perspective.

I mean intent is of course a human term. It's difficult for me to personify the universe as if it had the intent or choice as if it was like a human. But we must consider that because chaos happens in reality, that chaos is an epiphenomenon of reality, and perhaps that's what reality desires to do.

I'm only thinking as I go along. I have really no idea. I just can't fathom something like a prime mover imagining things into creation, but if reality or the universe does it, it makes more sense to imply a term such as intelligence to the way it creates things.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I was thinking along the lines of a natural algorithm written into existence itself, the merest of space encoded with subtle vibrations that determine the behavior of all particles dancing therein. A code formed of its own volition...which, really, would imply that EVERYTHING is alive to some extent.

Just as many spiritual groups have stated.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Yes, do read and tell us more, and we'll give you a star every time you use the word "tautological" in order to demonstrate a superior comprehension of the CTMU.

You can't offend me NewAgeMan. I love sarcasm. It looks good on ya. Star for that.

There's no other word I can use other than the term 'tautology.' It's a term in logic. Langon's CMTU is logic-based. He even goes so far to call it supertautological, but I shortened it just for you. Of course you might know that if you read any of it. But no, you're not here to discuss are you. You're hear to preach.

And if picking up a dictionary makes you feel inferior, that's not my problem.

I was just kidding.

From what I can tell, Langan, aside from having a super high IQ because he happened to be born with an extra large cranium, is a bit of a megalomaniac, and trust me on this, because it takes one to know one and I happen to have an overlarge-sized head as well, although I might not have received quite as much grey matter, I'll admit to that.

He acknowledges that we all share the same fundamental experience on what I call the unconditioned ground of being and becoming through the divided middle of an evolutionary process by design ie: what was is and will be, from a first/last cause, the implication being that what we are experiencing was intended, right from the very get go.

There is an immense humor in this understanding and recognition, which Langan doesn't seem to be getting because he's so wrapped up in his superior IQ (yet blinded by ego), so while it may be the product of a high IQ it doesn't seem to contain the humor of true understanding, or the knowledge of actual human experience ie: in the domain of the qualia of our EQ or emotional quotient, where knowledge is tested by experience.

So while he can "enjoy" the endless machinations of the tautalogy of his CTMU or cognitive theoretic model of the universe, to be the first if not the only one to prove the existence of God in the reality-mind matrix of an interpenetrating cosmological unity - I would prefer to admire something even greater, and perhaps to even greater tautalogical effect (in terms of the reaction and response invited) to the degree that the personification of the CTMU in action, is by far and many orders of magnitude more valuable than a linguistic cognitive description of the linkage by which such a manifestation became possible in the fullness of time and history.



Oh no, is this "preaching"?

If so, please forgive me, I can't help but to interject based on what I know and aspire to, which you could say would represent the purpose and the plan for the human being, even within an evolutionary cosmological framework, and beyond.

Could it be here, in man, where we stand next to the very Godhead? - while our solar system hurtles through space along with the rest of the galaxy at 70,000 miles/hr..?

what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?

~ Pslam 8:4

/sermon over. Amen?



NAM

P.S. If that wasn't worth a star then I don't know what is.

Well, I finished 14 pages of this thread before giving up and deciding to just post what someone else may have already covered.

1) Although Langan may be a genius, he himself never appeals to authority. He has spent a great deal of time detailing his theory. You can find a full explanation of his theory on his site and you can also find critiques of his theory online. For everyone that has posted that being a genius means nothing: A) You're wrong, B) Feel free to read his dissertation and dispute the logic of it.

2) He's no longer a bouncer. He hasn't been for quite some time.

3) He's not a Christian. From what I understand, he doesn't espouse any specific religion. He believes that the Bible is allegorical.

It's frustrating as a long time (relative, I know) member of ATS to see people posting such idiocy as 'if he believes in God, he's no genius', 'IQ means nothing', or commenting on his theory without ever actually reading what that theory is.

BTW, I freely admit that I'm not bright enough to follow him that closely. I'd need him to give a 'big picture' explanation of his theory, which he actually provides on his website in the FAQ. I disagree with his theory and it's seemingly inherent pantheism, but I recognize that I couldn't back that up in any credible fashion in a discussion with him. I'm simply not fighting in his weight class.

reply to post by EricD


Excellent points and welcome to the discussion. I agree that his ideas are pantheistic and that is not a belief that appeals to me but I think that the overall idea is beneficial for those who have been told all of their life that science and religion will always be antithetical.

Pantheism is a natural conclusion to come to given the human minds inability to comprehend things like eternity or non-locality or a omnilocality? . As LesMisanthrope mentioned before it is an easier pill to swallow to think that something quite tangible in some sense like the universe is all there is and build a framework from there. I however feel that even though science and religion often disagree about the interpretations of data it seems that science does lean towards a linear time frame in so much as we have a vague conception of a "beginning" of time. Some feel this is just our observation of one aspect in a cycle similar to the day and night of Brahma but I feel it shows that God must exist outside of said creation of the universe.

God being eternal is not constrained by time which is merely a part of his creation thus the debate of what came before God is moot as God always was and is.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


for sake of clarity, I think it's important to point out that "chaos" is distinct from "noise", in that the time-evolution statistics of a chaotic phenomenon ALWAYS (by definition) conform to some type of hidden pattern or regularity. the heartbeat is a perfect example, and the "control signal" of the heartbeat is yet unknown and is thought to be a self sustaining chaotic orbit.

anyways, in this conversation there have been many times where "chaos" was used, but meant "noise". chaotic orbits are inherently tautological and teleological (

reply to post by EricD


I, too, ended up reading his primary work and have been really impressed by it. the responses in this thread by those whom haven't even bothered familiarizing themselves stick out like sore, non-genius, thumbs.

the only person qualified to argue against this would be a genius of equivalence, conspicuously absent from this thread.

nevertheless, I remain a fence-sitter in the creator debate.