Christopher Langan A Credible Response

[TomVodkaCollins]

Did he just say--wait, lemme reel it back and make sure...yep, he did. He just said that stupid people have more common sense than not-stupid people. I think we found a stupid people.

[ThePaul1E]

you are a good man

[ThePaul1E]

if something can not be in some way understood mathematicly or predicted in one way or another it does not exist, it is scary to face reality but it is beautiful, more beautiful than made up stories in the bible for a example.

[ThePaul1E]

it is not common sense to make trivial knowledge spread by human beings through for an example the bible sound like universal facts.

[Caladcholg]

You are missing the point entirely... Choices are *made up* of binary yes/no inputs, not the macro events themselves. Did you even read the ctmu? Or just watch some interview.

[The99Metric]

I'm sorry but you're simply misinformed. Please read the CTMU, and if you have any actual arguments against it, create another video. Sense brain functioning is a result of synaptic firing, the determiner of which is an accumulation of neurotransmitters resulting in a binary-- fire or not fire-- action, your example about child and mother is to overlook the point of the brain.

[TransfiguredinChrist]

@The99Metric I've reviewed the CTMU. It is a form of Pantheism. That everything is a part of God. this idea is not new but has been around for centuries. Undoubtedly there is some truth in his arguments, particularly in his assertion of intelligent design. I also agree with his belief in an evolutionary Universe as opposed to Creationism which violates reason.

[TransfiguredinChrist]

@The99Metric ....However I also believe him to be in error also in that if our minds are also a part of God's. Then God contains evil. I cannot accept a Ying and Yang God and also one of infinite love. These are self contradictory. It really depends on what you mean by God, and an idea of God is no God at all since it falls short of the infinite. Therefore God can only be known by another means. Firstly He must reveal himself, and secondly

[ctmudebater]

Point 2: In the CTMU, this is justified as (a) God's determinations of what constitutes evil overrule our own, (b) God's determinations of what constitutes evil can be logically verified, and (c) our free will allows us to do destructive things on a local scale, but on God's scale the utility of our actions ultimately balance out and in fact lead to our intellectual development, which is a huge bonus. Remember, one who is not faced with problems cannot develop the capacity to solve them.

[The99Metric]

@TransfiguredinChrist While the CTMU does describe, at least in principle, our minds as a subset of the mind of God, it doesn't describe our actions as that of Gods.

Furthermore, I see this as no different than the argument: "If God created everything, then, by proxy, he created evil. Therefore, God did not create everything, and if he didn't create everything, then there exists elements of reality which were not created by God. This implies that God is not an otological necessity. "

[The99Metric]

@The99Metric And, if he is not an otological necessity, why say he exists at all?

[TransfiguredinChrist]

@The99Metric ....he can be grasped by a means other than the mind, at least on this side of the grave. the question is whether He has revealed Himself.

[ctmudebater]

@TransfiguredinChrist Point 3: In fact, absolutely everything, including God, is "mental" in a general sense. That is, without information processing of the kind precluded on a mind of some level of complexity, God or anything else would not be causally or perceptually relevant to anything in reality, meaning that it would lack relevance to reality and not exist.

[TransfiguredinChrist]

@The99Metric On the point of the brain being firing synapses. This is an insufficient answer. Firing synapses although binary in nature are a proximate cause for intellect and mental functioning. This does not negate the possibility and necessity of a remote cause - a first cause. The brain can be seen as the source of consciousness or as a conduit. This cannot be proved scientifically it is in the area of metaphysics, but this does not make it less real.

[ka16sg5]

you can't measure something that does not exist.....

[Molandria]

Everyone still thinks IQ means intelligence... it doesn't. It's learning aptitude.

[mabloch2410]

Perhaps the word `respect` have different connotations to those who speak English as mothers tongue than it has in Norway. I wasn`t aware of that.

However, i didn`t mean ùnquestioned political correctness`.

My main point was that I think it`s a bit telling/suspicious how eager many people, in general, are to ridicule people with high IQ. Seems to me to be a sensitive issue. (Mine is way "down there in the toilet").

My remark wasn`t aimed at you, I actually don`t know what you have written.

[mabloch2410]

After reading a lot of comments on iq and intelligense to different videos, I`m just happy to see you pay Langan respect for his iq. If the claim of his iq is legitimate he beats all of us commentators with several standarddeviations.

Disaagreement on issue is fine, and critique of caracter (within reasonable limits) also. But when so many is so eager to ridicule his intelligence, I cant help thinking you are somehow threatened/feals jealous of his iq.

Please ridicule my spelling (in Norweian)

[justjulie37]

No one has proof of God. There has been many many debates over this, and any person with a brain stem knows that no human can ever really know what or who God is or if he even exists.

[Shiddapupa]

Seems to be a little high in the DQ department (douche-bag quotient).

[ScottKoffman]

A well spoken load of crap.

[obeirnbh]

You misunderstood.

[TransfiguredinChrist]

@obeirnbh Perhaps one or two technicalities, although you didn't point them out. In substance, I don't think so. The last words a good man or woman might offer to the suffering or dying often tend to be the truth. The philosophy of this man is light years away from that.

[ctmudebater]

@TransfiguredinChrist First, you made the mistake of confusing the presence of logic with sociopathy. Second, you assumed that Langan does not conceive of God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Third, you assumed that God can be expressed in a reductionistic manner. Fourth, you claimed that good ethical judgement (which he termed "wisdom") is separate from intelligence, which is an assumption that does not stand up to empirical testing.

[TransfiguredinChrist]

@ctmudebater That is precisely the point if binary logic is the predetermining factor then sociopathy has no meaning. A sociopath exists relative to goodness and order which belongs to God, just as evil has no meaning of its own but is a parasite on goodness - it is goodness and Love twisted. Your invoking sociopathy proves the point of the absurdness of a binary logical God. Thank you

[TransfiguredinChrist]

Respond to this video... "I don't assume" that this man does not conceive of God as Omnipotent etc. He infers it himself by claiming that God can be understood, thus placing limits upon Him - ergo He (God) is not infinite in nature. Listen to the video again. It is Langan who takes the reductionistic approach. I place Him in the realm of Mystery (apart from what He Has revealed). Finally show me how you can empirically test Wisdom which is from God. Are you being reductionistic?

[ctmudebater]

If no aspect of God were capable of being understood, He would so far be removed from reality that His nonexistence would be guaranteed.To this you might respond that God has no logical limits and should be able to defy logic at will. However, it is important to note that logic *is* God. For suppose that there were a logical separation between the two.

[TransfiguredinChrist]

@ctmudebater The assertion that God "is' Logic, is absurd. If by logic you mean that something is not self contradictory, then God certainly is logical but that does not make Him equal to logic. That is as absurd as saying that if two apples are present in a bag it is logical to suppose that they are not absent from it - and then go on to say that an apple is equal to logic.

[ctmudebater]

@TransfiguredinChrist And yet I've given you an absolute proof of the claim. If you consider it "absurd", that is only your own fault. Here is the proof again. Suppose there is a logical separation between God and logic. Then the separation, being logical, falls on logic's side of the dichotomy; its extensionality shrinks to 0, and it is consequently nonexistent. Thus, there *is* no logical separation between logic and God.

[ctmudebater]

@TransfiguredinChrist In fact, the argument can be just as easily applied to an apple, your example, and one would arrive at the conclusion that apples are inseparable from logic, which is true as apples are (like everything) a part of God.

[TransfiguredinChrist]

@ctmudebater No aspect of God can be fully grasped just as you and I cannot understand infinity, but we can see reflections of it. The number line, the very large and the larger still etc. In the same way God is not removed from reality but firmly present in it since He is the only complete reality. What we see of reality though is a pale reflection of it's full glory. Our reality is very real but just not the fulness of reality. That is why the heart is never satisfied in this life

[ctmudebater]

@TransfiguredinChrist I certainly agree that God is real, i.e., part of reality, and that He is in fact the cohesive principle binding reality firmly in place. I also agree that the scope of our vision is not nearly complete. I simply disagree in your claim that we can now *nothing* about God. My logical reasoning in other posts contradicts this claim quite blatantly.

[ctmudebater]

Then logic would fall to one side of the gulf, and the separation, itself being logical, would have to fall on the logical side, contradicting the assumption that there is a logical separation between God and logic. I.e., when God obey the laws of logic, God obeys God. Call it "reductionistic" or what you will, but the fact remains that this position is the guaranteed one.

[ctmudebater]

Moreover, one can test "wisdom" with a comprehensive logical framework for the proper resolution of all problems, such as the CTMU. Note that such a framework would also effect the solution of all ethical problems that anyone who understands the framework is willing to solve.

[TransfiguredinChrist]

@ctmudebater Perhaps Wisdom can be "tested" as you put it, within the proper framework. Show that this framework is attainable my finite beings. Mathematics is a language that describes physical reality not metaphysical. I presume by your assertions that you see reality as being purely physical.

[ctmudebater]

@TransfiguredinChrist Point 4: In fact, both Langan and I are strictly opposed to a physicalist view of reality; this should be clear to you at least with regards to Langan. Mathematics, in being *logical*, has a say on matters both physical and metaphysical. Wisdom can be tested by checking how close one's views are to the CTMU, for example, as the latter is an absolute logical framework. This is a proof by construction; if you find a flaw in the CTMU's logic, address it at will.

[TransfiguredinChrist]

@ctmudebater Let's assume that as I think you believe. God can be described by a set of equations or a Mathematical framework. Then He is subject to the laws of those equations, and He is not the First cause. Then you must proceed to ask what is the first cause of the these laws ad infinitum. You always arrive at a first cause that is outside everything else. It cannot be understood but that does not make it non-existent. Read St Thomas Aquinas 14 proofs for the existence of God.

[ctmudebater]

Fifth, Langan was pointing out that many academics have lost faith, which is what he meant by, "Faith is dead." Sixth, you referred implicitly to what is traditionally termed "the soul" and denied that it can be explained mathematically. Seventh, you assumed that anti-dysgenics is necessarily as bad as what happened within the Nazi regime, yet it is strictly different from eugenics and especially racially biased eugenics.

[TransfiguredinChrist]

@ctmudebater "I don't assume" that this man does not conceive of God as Omnipotent etc. He infers it himself by claiming that God can be understood, thus placing limits upon Him - ergo He (God) is not infinite in nature. Listen to the video again. It is Langan who takes the reductionistic approach. I place Him in the realm of Mystery (apart from what He Has revealed). Finally show me how you can empirically test Wisdom which is from God. Are you being reductionistic?