Smartest Man in America says God exists

I ran across Chris Langan through a professor of mine. His story is interesting to me because he is such an underachiever. Intelligence does not always guarantee success in life and I find the derisive comments about him being a bouncer to be nothing more than veiled prejudice. I think of people like Diogenes or Thoreau or a long list of classical composers and artist who died penniless.

The guy does have some issues but I know from interviews he has given that he had a pretty horrible childhood and was basically beaten by his father/stepfather? for being more intelligent than him until Chris Langan bulked up enough to throw the guy out.

Personally I think the guy is genuine but because he didn't conform to being a self obsessed overachiever people want to take shots at him. He has been working on some kind of cognitive theory of the universe which I have not studied but I am not surprised to find that his research has led to a belief in a creator since the evidence is all around in every moment of your life.

reply to post by NihilistSanta


Exactly. Thank you for posting that. Just because someone can, does not mean that they should or will. Maybe they feel like they don't want to give everyone the gift of their genius because they feel the world hasn't earned what it so fiercely demands.

Just a perspective.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Good point. Less is more for me. Thanks Oppenheimer, Von Braun , (insert name of genius whose ideas have been used to kill more efficiently) .

Originally posted by NihilistSanta
...his research has led to a belief in a creator since the evidence is all around in every moment of your life.

So, what is this 'evidence' so many believers speak of which (allegedly) clearly supports the idea of gods?
And having presented said 'evidence' which gods are supported by it? Abrahamic? Hindu? Sikh? Or any number of others believed so passionately as 'the truth' by peoples around the world?

reply to post by NihilistSanta


Your take seems valid to me. I know that there probably hasn't been a "study" done, but I think there
may even be a direct correlation of high intelligence and being an "under achiever" by societal monetary
standards.

I have a higher IQ (146) compared to most of my associates. It has caused me to want to remain outside
the rat race, as well. I think the higher the intellect the more likely that it could be expected.
I can't even imagine what the thought processes are of someone in the 190+ range would even be like.
But, I know that the further up the scale one goes the fewer people with whom you can relate, fully.

Though I have came to identical conclusions as is mentioned in the OP, I remain an agnostic, because my conclusions rely heavily on intuition and very lightly on analysis which can be backed by evidence.

It matters not to me that this guy can solve logic problems well, and has a solid memory. I've met many people like this.

I honestly think what would be best is if our species retired the name "God" , and put in it's place, "the cosmos". In my mind, the universe is the physical reality we experience, yet the cosmos is a more subtle layer from which the universe manifest. I basically equate the cosmos as the mind of "God", and the universe as God's body.

It just bugs me even using that name, as so many different connotations arise, and usually more harm than good. Why can't we just rid ourselves of the dogma and leave it with, "the cosmos". There is definitely an order to the cosmos, but I don't know that "perfection" exists without subjective beings to perceive such from a chosen value system. We're inside of this physical universe, and must make due with it's laws. It seems rational that we place "perfection" on this order, as it's what we know and work with. The logical extension would be to place "supreme" as this supposed being which manifests our physical reality. As far as I'm concerned, "God" could be a lazy fool who doesn't bother to keep his mind tidy and look after his thoughts well. He could be the dimwit of the multiverse. Who knows?

There is something really wrong here.
According to my young children, I am the smartest man on Planet Earth, and I never said any such thing!

snrRog

reply to post by grainofsand


The evidence is life and existence itself. Creation denotes intelligence . Cause and effect. The Prime Mover. No one can effectively argue against a source. Science has a source but has to resort to semantics. Science steps outside its designation when it makes assumptions which are nothing more than attempts to strip The Prime Mover of its intelligence and paint it as some illogical "Big Bang". Something from nothing .

In reference to denominations/deities and such you are muddying the waters, the differences in their ideas which are fundamental pantheist,panentheist, animist, monotheist etc. still has a source. Behind them all is some sort of governing principal that creates and sustains life which is equatable to God. This is what Chris Langan and others searching for unified theories of the universe are getting at.

reply to post by Runciter33


High IQ almost always equals crazy or didnt you know that? Ever see " A Beautiful Mind " ? I'd say crazy. Anyone who believes in God is crazy.

Originally posted by unityemissions
Though I have came to identical conclusions as is mentioned in the OP, I remain an agnostic,

Nope, if anyone comes to identical conclusions as is mentioned in the OP then they too support the god idea and would fall into the theist camp.

because my conclusions rely heavily on intuition and very lightly on analysis which can be backed by evidence.

Agnostic theist then?

It matters not to me that this guy can solve logic problems well, and has a solid memory. I've met many people like this.

I agree, an IQ result does not as a factor in itself offer any extra credence to argument in a faith based debate.

I honestly think what would be best is if our species retired the name "God" , and put in it's place, "the cosmos". In my mind, the universe is the physical reality we experience, yet the cosmos is a more subtle layer from which the universe manifest. I basically equate the cosmos as the mind of "God", and the universe as God's body.

It just bugs me even using that name, as so many different connotations arise, and usually more harm than good. Why can't we just rid ourselves of the dogma and leave it with, "the cosmos". There is definitely an order to the cosmos, but I don't know that "perfection" exists without subjective beings to perceive such from a chosen value system. We're inside of this physical universe, and must make due with it's laws. It seems rational that we place "perfection" on this order, as it's what we know and work with. The logical extension would be to place "supreme" as this supposed being which manifests our physical reality. As far as I'm concerned, "God" could be a lazy fool who doesn't bother to keep his mind tidy and look after his thoughts well. He could be the dimwit of the multiverse. Who knows?

Do we need any magically loaded 'single entity' label for the various natural forces of the universe we're aware of?

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Right. Wouldnt God know that when its night in one part of the planet its day in another. Does he not know that it is never not Winter someplace on the planet? He says things like Hope it does not occur in Winter. Ha well its always winter somewhere. He says in the dark of night when its never night all over the planet. The bible is so local to the middle east and no where else on the planet that one should conclude that God is god of the Sahara and not the universe. The bible only talks about the middle east and neglects the fact that there is a globe here. Neglects that it is night in one part and day in another or its winter in one part and summer in another. Really if this IQ guy were to apply critical thinking to the bible he would certainly reject the whole kit and kaboodle.

Originally posted by NihilistSanta
reply to post by grainofsand

 

The evidence is life and existence itself.

Nope, thats just your belief and assertion, it is not evidence.

reply to post by PrplHrt


Mine is 135 which is in the high superior area but not genius.

reply to post by grainofsand


All I can say is your logic has failed you.

Please try again.

reply to post by PaperbackWriter


Like every law ever written was not written by man? We do govern ourselves. How to you account for todays society ? There are too many people who do not believe in God. The laws come from man and man alone.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by grainofsand

 

All I can say is your logic has failed you.

Please try again.

edit on 30-12-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

An interesting assertion, perhaps if you explained why you think that way we could explore it further.

reply to post by grainofsand


Then you will kindly explain the presence of 250,000 different plant varieties on Earth.
More than 100,000 types of trees from Date Palms to Sequoias.
Do you think that evolution accounts for this and if so how?

I am sure it must be common knowledge an easily explained by you, apparently.

In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, 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. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human.[25]

What this guy is talking about is nothing new. Philosophical idealism has been around since Plato. Idealism can be refuted by punching a tree.

He's basically parroting the great Bishop Berkley.

Originally posted by PaperbackWriter
reply to post by grainofsand

 

Then you will kindly explain the presence of 250,000 different plant varieties on Earth.
More than 100,000 types of trees from Date Palms to Sequoias.
Do you think that evolution accounts for this and if so how?

I am sure it must be common knowledge an easily explained by you, apparently.

I am not the one making assertions, it is therefore not up to me to provide evidence to the discussion.
I state that I have seen nothing to persuade me that any gods are involved in my life. Others assert that there are.
If you fall into the 'there is a god' camp then it is up to you to provide a more reasoned argument to convince non-believers.

If an argument relies ultimately on faith alone then it should be declared as such, not as fact.

I could be wrong, but isn't this guy's "theory" basically one of the core principles of Hermeticism?