Christopher Langan A Credible Response

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
1,404
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Jul 25, 2011

A reasoned response to Christopher Langan's views, which, I believe, portray a flawed understanding of God and Humanity.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 9 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (45)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • with the way you use the word spiritual it is interchangeable with consciousness. You are consciousness matter.

  • 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.

  • you are a good man 

  • 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.

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

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

  • @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. " 

  • @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.

  • @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.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more