+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-61.html)
+--- Forum: Logic, Metaphysics & Philosophy (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-80.html)
+--- Thread: The CTMU uses unnecessarily complicated language to prove the existence of God (/thread-4149.html)
Pages:
1
2
The CTMU uses unnecessarily complicated language to prove the existence of God - Ostronomos - Sep 6, 2017
At the risk of lessening Langan's authority, I can tell you that the CTMU proves the Mind of God is real as experienced by the non-random processing of reality known as telic augmentation where the decisions and choices of animate matters submit to the will of the universal mind. I feel however that the burden of proof lies on Langan and the responsibility of using language to properly deliver it to the average person and not only geniuses (...like me). On a positive note, it is not void of detail. You bunch should be able to work through it. I have no complaints in regards to it being a reality theoretic extension of logic (the extension of logic to reality). I am politely and adequately delivering a message to Langan. Thank you.
RE: The CTMU uses unnecessarily complicated language to prove the existence of God - RainbowUnicorn - Sep 7, 2017
(Sep 6, 2017 09:06 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: At the risk of lessening Langan's authority, I can tell you that the CTMU proves the Mind of God is real as experienced by the non-random processing of reality known as telic augmentation where the decisions and choices of animate matters submit to the will of the universal mind. I feel however that the burden of proof lies on Langan and the responsibility of using language to properly deliver it to the average person and not only geniuses (...like me). On a positive note, it is not void of detail. You bunch should be able to work through it. I have no complaints in regards to it being a reality theoretic extension of logic (the extension of logic to reality). I am politely and adequately delivering a message to Langan. Thank you.
Quote:decisions and choices of animate matters?
a rock or planet...
do these things make choices ?
it would seem to me more likely that the observer would have their perception manipulated to determine the nature of the expereince rather than the animation of a rock ...
though i would be more inclined to beleive a planet could have a "mind".
RE: The CTMU uses unnecessarily complicated language to prove the existence of God - Zinjanthropos - Sep 7, 2017
(Sep 6, 2017 09:06 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: I feel however that the burden of proof lies on Langan and the responsibility of using language to properly deliver it to the average person and not only geniuses (...like me). On a positive note, it is not void of detail. You bunch should be able to work through it.
Feeling a little condescending today Ostro?
Mind of God or universal mind? I wish you would just settle on one. I wouldn't think a genius like yourself would confuse the two. What you're really saying is that CMTU proves there's a mind and that you really can't decide who owns it. Doesn't prove God just because you think there's a mind out there, or whether God is the universe or if God is a part of the universe and so on.. A genius like yourself should see where I'm going with this.
I remember the first time I looked at Langan's CMTU and thinking 'WOW, I'm way ahead of this guy' because his words somewhat agreed with my exploding God idea, although he wouldn't have known that.
He just expands on it a touch. 
I was reminded the other day on another forum about the atheist who wanted to test the gullibility of Muslims by creating a story for which they were told the Quran was encoded on human DNA, a miracle of Islam now believed by many to be true. If a genius like Langan doesn't know the power of the written word and how to disguise it then what of the intent of his theory? Personally he may have an axe to grind, especially with academia, and what better way than to dupe geniuses like yourself.
Just add CMTU to the pile.
RE: The CTMU uses unnecessarily complicated language to prove the existence of God - Ostronomos - Sep 7, 2017
You have it backwards.
There is a serious deficit in your understanding as you show a complete lack of believing CTMU to be a fact on par with such works as Gray's Anatomy. Its proof of God makes up for its redundancy in terms of language.
This however does not invalidate mine or Langan's genius in proving the universe to be a mind, and I apologize if I was misleading earlier, but that mind belongs to God.
I am incredibly proud of my genius as I began an ignorant fool years ago and developed myself over time.
The universe is a restriction of infinite potential or possibility which negates itself upon emergence from nothing. It is not eternal. Quantum gravity and the Big Bang model claim this via mathematical harmony.
The elegance of the mathematics that prove God's reality suffices to invalidate your failure to comprehend it.
(Sep 7, 2017 12:26 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote:Rocks and planets have Quantum behavior on the atomic level where they exhibit superposition or logical undecidability until observation collapses the wavefunction, but it must be made by an observer who can make the choice to observe. Note I said that animate matters are subject to the will of God and not the other way around. During telic augmentation, the universal mind processes reality in a non-random way and there is direct feedback between an individual human brain/ mind and God's universe/ mind.(Sep 6, 2017 09:06 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: At the risk of lessening Langan's authority, I can tell you that the CTMU proves the Mind of God is real as experienced by the non-random processing of reality known as telic augmentation where the decisions and choices of animate matters submit to the will of the universal mind. I feel however that the burden of proof lies on Langan and the responsibility of using language to properly deliver it to the average person and not only geniuses (...like me). On a positive note, it is not void of detail. You bunch should be able to work through it. I have no complaints in regards to it being a reality theoretic extension of logic (the extension of logic to reality). I am politely and adequately delivering a message to Langan. Thank you.
Quote:decisions and choices of animate matters?
a rock or planet...
do these things make choices ?
it would seem to me more likely that the observer would have their perception manipulated to determine the nature of the expereince rather than the animation of a rock ...
though i would be more inclined to beleive a planet could have a "mind".
RE: The CTMU uses unnecessarily complicated language to prove the existence of God - Secular Sanity - Sep 7, 2017
(Sep 7, 2017 07:50 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: I am incredibly proud of my genius as I began an ignorant fool years ago and developed myself over time.
Hi. I'm Ostronomos and my dick is this big.
Holy shit! What do you think, Zinman, a sockpuppet or a real live nutter?
Ostronomos Wrote:Rocks and planets have Quantum behavior on the atomic level where they exhibit superposition or logical undecidability until observation collapses the wavefunction, but it must be made by an observer who can make the choice to observe.
No, smart one. You’re wrong.
There is a serious deficiency in your understanding of the quantum wave function.
RE: The CTMU uses unnecessarily complicated language to prove the existence of God - Zinjanthropos - Sep 7, 2017
(Sep 7, 2017 09:54 PM)Up Secular Sanity Wrote:I think Ostro is a miracle, from fool to genius, don't think it's ever been done. This is a chance to invoke my new policy towards folks who practice sock puppetry, troll, woo merchant, nutter, declaring themselves this or that and generally March to a different beat...... Leave them be, serves no purpose to demean them, they have enough problems already. But if Ostro can go one way then Langan the genius can go the other.(Sep 7, 2017 07:50 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: I am incredibly proud of my genius as I began an ignorant fool years ago and developed myself over time.
Holy shit! What do you think, Zinman, a sockpuppet or a real live nutter?
I think again of Lawrence Krauss who said and I'm paraphrasing, we've arrived on the scene at exactly the right time to observe the universe and develop theories/proofs about our beginnings. Later when the Milky Way has become an island in space with no evidence of other galaxies or anything space related available to any new civilization, they will eventually learn all there is to learn and will also formulate a theory complete with the math that proves their origins and best of all.....they'll be right.
I don't rely on the maths entirely. Never know when I may need to inject a cosmological constant just to make it work.
Oops almost forgot. I find this site and report interesting: http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2011/06/226-christopher-m-langan.html
RE: The CTMU uses unnecessarily complicated language to prove the existence of God - Secular Sanity - Sep 8, 2017
(Sep 7, 2017 11:09 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: This is a chance to invoke my new policy towards folks who practice sock puppetry, troll, woo merchant, nutter, declaring themselves this or that and generally March to a different beat...... Leave them be, serves no purpose to demean them, they have enough problems already.
I don't know. I don't think it's as healthy as confrontation. There are diehard cranks that do tend to get really defensive, but most people have self-inflated assessments simple because they’re inexperienced. They just don’t realize their current limitations. There's always room for improvement.
"Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities." [SOURCE]
RE: The CTMU uses unnecessarily complicated language to prove the existence of God - Zinjanthropos - Sep 8, 2017
(Sep 8, 2017 12:02 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:(Sep 7, 2017 11:09 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: This is a chance to invoke my new policy towards folks who practice sock puppetry, troll, woo merchant, nutter, declaring themselves this or that and generally March to a different beat...... Leave them be, serves no purpose to demean them, they have enough problems already.
I don't know. I don't think it's as healthy as confrontation. There are diehard cranks that do tend to get really defensive, but most people have self-inflated assessments simple because they’re inexperienced. They just don’t realize their current limitations. There's always room for improvement.
"Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities." [SOURCE]
Ya but I've grown weary. Can't remember her name but an Internet psychologist, maybe a psychiatrist, had advice on how to confront delusional people. I think it was the 10 things you shouldn't do to a delusional person. No matter that there were only 9 pearls of wisdom listed, some were to refrain from calling them delusional, making fun or name calling. Basically, be nice. I'm trying it out. So far I'm pleased with the results but it's kind of like conversing with a patient in palliative care.
RE: The CTMU uses unnecessarily complicated language to prove the existence of God - RainbowUnicorn - Sep 8, 2017
(Sep 7, 2017 07:50 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: Rocks and planets have Quantum behavior on the atomic level where they exhibit superposition or logical undecidability until observation collapses the wavefunction, but it must be made by an observer who can make the choice to observe. Note I said that animate matters are subject to the will of God and not the other way around. During telic augmentation, the universal mind processes reality in a non-random way and there is direct feedback between an individual human brain/ mind and God's universe/ mind.
do you propose the "potential" existance of a non god universe ?
...
wanted to elborate on my propositional question ...
if the perception of people is defined by god, then perception is thus manipulated. thus free will is potentially invalidated.
if the premise is to suggest all things are created to be percieved in a certain manner, then free will has been abandonned and we are but puppets left to wobble on a deliberately wobbly table.
for people to "find the light" as it were and percieve things correctly, is to bend to the will of another by virtue of lack of alternate theory & comprehension.
thus choice being between that which is false and that which is the only acceptable alternative is not an actual choice.
can you prove that free will has infact been granted & expressed or is "surrender"(as it were...) a subjective constant of acceptable reality for intellectual boundary ?
RE: The CTMU uses unnecessarily complicated language to prove the existence of God - Magical Realist - Sep 8, 2017
Ostronomos you don't need Langan or an IQ of 160 to believe in God. Just believe God exists and get on with it. Seems like you are getting off more on proving God exists than on God himself. Remember, pride cometh before a fall.