Chris Langan - Can I get a quick rundown?

If you say so. Tell you what, let's just look at the first paragraph together to show you what I'm talking about.

>Atheism - the oxymoronic...
How is it oxymoronic to say god doesn't exist?
> ...metaphysical statement that reality lacks a coherent metaphysical identity, which equates to "God" under certain definitions
Here's some eel-tier slipperiness. A sleazy contract lawyer would be proud. Langan later criticizes a specific kind of atheism for being "too general in the kind of 'God' it denies" and yet here he attacks a very diffuse definition of atheism. It's easy to hit a target when it could really mean anything. I don't even think it's really necessary to point out that denying what under some specific circumstances we call "God" does not deny what he most likely means by "coherent metaphysical identity" but since he doesn't exactly explain what he means by that it's anyone's guess. I'm interpreting that term to mean something like ontologically consistent, which the universe can be independent of "God."
>That is, it implicitly affirms its own truth while denying its own truth.
Normally these kinds of sentences are reserved for the ends of paragraphs which support them, rather than being placed at the beginning and then explained. Since that is the case we have to continue on since this statement means basically nothing until he goes further.
>A statement which is metaphysical by construction - i.e., which refers to nature or physical reality from above...
Pause right here. Here Langan misunderstands what metaphysics is. Metaphysics concerns the fundamental nature of reality, not the paranormal.
>...occupying higher level of reference - cannot be true where it explicitly denies its own metaphysical support.
Here he doesn't say what that support is. If he means that "God" is a support to all metaphysical statements then he has a convenient tautology set up for himself where the denial of God cannot be made because God is required as a buttress for any metaphysical statement. Either this is intellectual dishonesty or he doesn't even know what he's saying here, and I'm honestly unsure which is true.

There's quite a bit more to dissect from this single paragraph but you get the idea. There are load of problems, misuses of terms, over-complications of statements, logical fallacies, etc.

bro.... that's cring bro...

Well Langan, you got me. I guess you win.

*snap*

It's cause all of his arguments are circulus in probando

more like circulus in your moms ass

Fuck... okay, Chris Langan wins once more.

Langan's dominating. How can Yea Forums compete?

sub 190 IQ need not reply

Hey Langan, when are you going to produce a legitimate answer to the P versus NP problem and collect your $1,000,000?

Attached: 1HY86EN_741_lt.jpg (360x360, 17K)

i started the chris langan meme...feels weird bros

The matter has been satisfactorily resolved for my own purposes (which, incidentally, are the only purposes about which I care in this context).

There are two different solutions, one of which applies in a certain framework defined as “metacausal”, “precomputational” or “protocomputational”, and the other of which applies in a causal or computational limit thereof. This amounts to a relativization of the solution. Although I can’t say for sure, I suspect that in the view of the “Millennium Prize” Committee, this falls short of an actual Y|N solution, leaving me nothing whatsoever to gain by submission.

(We also have the serious problem of bias on the Millennium Prize Committee, expressed by Andrew Wiles as their complete certainty that no non-academic is capable of solving any of the problems. This, of course, guarantees that the submissions of nonacademics will in effect be circular-filed, leaving them no rational choice but to disregard such prizes, and where necessary, the professional academics who award them to each other.)

your failure to understand what "atheism" means that your whole little post is fucked from the start. atheism is not merely the belief in god, but also the denial of any higher metaphysics, the denial of any rationality or inherent order in the universe/the logos...which is reduced down to god for simplicity. you disproved nothing

lack of belief in god*

Based

>The matter has been satisfactorily resolved for my own purposes
>There are two different solutions,
Let's see them.
>“precomputational” or “protocomputational”
How do you differentiate between these two terms?
>This amounts to a relativization of the solution.
Do you mean to say that the two solutions are somehow merged or that both solutions are evasive and diffuse?
>leaving me nothing whatsoever to gain by submission.
Except a shot at $1,000,000 and a further proliferation of your ideas. So why the cowardice? The worst that happens is nothing.

Atheists aren't smart enough to know that they're dumb

Hey Chris, what do you think about the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics? You're a smart guy, so I would expect that you would at least give it an honest appraisal. Here's a link to the free book download.
brilliantlightpower.com/book-download-and-streaming/
It contradicts your beliefs of platonic idealism, and asserts metaphysical realism/ determinism. Don't let that stop you from giving it a once over.

Attached: 1 of 2.png (815x641, 516K)

Obsessed

Attached: 2 of 2 - Edited.png (816x638, 570K)

>atheism is not merely the [lack of] belief in god, but also the denial of any higher metaphysics
Wrong. See pic for a basic definition found via google.
>the denial of any rationality or inherent order in the universe/the logos
Whoa there Mr. Slippery Slope! Being an atheist has nothing to do with a lack of belief in rationality or order. I'm a bit hesitant with the term "inherent order" though since that's a pretty easily loaded term.
>which is reduced down to god for simplicity.
Again, an intellectually dishonest tautology. All you have to do is say that not believing in god is self-refuting because you can't make a paranormal statement without believing in the paranormal. It's a schoolyard game you're playing and I'm not impressed.

I AM impressed by how much this reminds me of the real chris though.

Attached: come on chris.png (797x448, 31K)

Based retard still doesn't get it

Langan is a savage

Here’s what amounts to a mathematical proof that atheists actively disbelieve in God. The word atheism can be etymologically deconstructed in two ways: atheo + ism and a + theism. The first literally means “belief in the nonexistence of God” (active disbelief in God), while the second means “nonbelief in the existence of God”. But the second definition is not yet complete, because it fails to specify whether or not one believes in the nonexistence of God. If one does not believe in the nonexistence of God, then this amounts to plain old agnosticism, i.e., believing in neither the existence nor the nonexistence of God. Only if one actively believes in the nonexistence of God does the second definition cease to equate to agnosticism.

Well, I tried my hand at a refutation but clearly I've been refuted. If only I had the IQ.

Attached: 1551232954312.jpg (400x400, 24K)

Langan's saying the coherent metaphysical identity of reality IS God and that any denial thereof presupposes the very reflexion which is being denied: because Langan's God is reflexion, again, a self-computing syntax. It observes itself into existence on the basis of its own ontological consistency, hence it is self-caused. Basic Spinozist definition of God actually. That essence whose essence is to exist.

Langan's right that cookie cutter atheists don't even know what the fuck they're actually talking about

The second case isn't agnosticism though, since it can still be the unagnostic nonbelief in the existence of a specific God e.g. a disbelief in Mithra or Zeus is a commonly held atheism. It's not incomplete, it's simply specific.

Either way, an active nonbelief in the nonexistence of God or an active disbelief in A god still doesn't preclude a belief in the rationality, logic, order, etc.

I have a refutation for every one of your statements in that last post, but I'm kind of lazy right now. It's yours if you want

You're not understanding what he's saying, you're making his point for him actually, it does not preclude a belief in order because that order is, sooner or later, tautological: and that tautology, or reality as a metatautology as he calls it, is the axiom that God is. All axioms are relative BUT God as the axiom of axioms: like Hegel, God is not a concept but the Notion of the notion. He's making moves you're not seeing.

>Langan's saying the coherent metaphysical identity of reality IS God and that any denial thereof presupposes the very reflexion which is being denied
So a tautology. Like I said.

I agree about the "cookie-cutter atheist" thing though. Most are just as dumb as your average cookie-cutter christian.

A tautology which is constitutive of reality. Circular logic doesn't apply here, Langan's tautology is a feature and not a bug.

lack in belief of god/the god(s) implies a lack of belief in the metaphysics that they represent. most people obviously believe in the personification of god(s) as well, but we're discussing the higher processes and ideals that they represent. this is because these higher ideals aren't easily recognized by our senses or scientific tools. so if you have any kind of metaphysical bone in that skull of yours, you should be able to at least recognize higher ideals that can be attributed to god. whether or not its a personal god or one that you can personify i don't really care

and i'm not sure how you call yourself trustworthy or call others out; while you conflate the concept of god and the paranormal. not that certain things aren't beyond our understanding, but you lumping god in with spooky ghouls and goblins to phase me shows that you're childish. fyi, those are real too lol

faggot

Brainlet

For a genius, he's a fucking idiot.

trips of DEATH

Trips of retardation. Neck yourself faggot

I understand what he's saying, what I'm saying is that saying something equivalent to "the thing you're using to disprove the thing is the thing itself" is a statement that literally cannot be disproven. It's a bunk statement. In logic that's called a tautology. It's a logical non-starter.

>Circular logic doesn't apply here
Except it does. You can be full of shit about any topic.
I can't disprove your mom isn't a hoe because her busted-ass pussy makes up the fabric of rationale and logic and the only way to talk about you mom is to admit that she's a complete dumpster slut, therefore anyone saying your mom isn't a putrid pussy-slinging skank is false because they failed to account for the fact that your mom's rancid ass pussy is the basis for all understanding of reality.

YIKES

Langan BTFO'd

The idea that his IQ being high indicates the validity of his claims is an appeal to authority, people just don't understand the basic fact that even the smartest human beings on Earth are totally fallible.

>that feel when you can't handle being called a faggot like a normal person and have to insult someone's innocent mother

turn back man, you know this is wrong

Attached: 1409252318883.png (489x423, 23K)

Then remain a weird brainlet.

Did this guy just resolve Kantian metaphysics?

Fuck

>be like a normal person
>you know this is wrong
I miss this place before the children's crusade

Attached: image-placeholder-title.jpg (1200x673, 187K)

Has an actual philosopher ever been to /litl?

pseudo intellectual

cringe

The example sentence provides more insight into the mind of an atheist than the definition

although this isnt a argument, his IQ has never been verified and gives off massive pseud vibes.

That's a pretty good argument if true

Incorrect

First, IQ does not represent anything in values higher than 140. At that point you are just "smart". The only ones smarter than that are prodigies like Terence Tao but in general, there's not much difference between a 140 IQ and a 170 IQ, especially when you realize they both get pretty much the same level of recognition. I would go further to say that IQ does not mean anything when trying to find smart people, but many people here are too busy sucking their own dicks to accept that.

Second, he is not smart, at least, not in the level of any academic graduate. He comes from the same Mega Test which supposedly tests really high IQ, and from where people Marilyn vos Savant and Rick Rosner came to be famous too. If you already know these two you know what point is going to be made here. They do nothing. Nothing. ¿A scientific paper?, no. ¿Actual important opinions in matter of politics or philosophy?, nope. One is dedicated to just solve easy puzzles in a magazine (like the super mega hard Monty Hall problem, way harder than any Putnam of course), and the other one, just as Langan, lives off his own supposed high IQ (Rosner is even worse, despite repeating high school a gazillion times he says he was "smart but lazy").
They constantly make bold claims, like creating a Theory of Everything or solving a Millennium Problem, but they never deliver. Langan actually mentioned once to get a 1600 in the SAT nap included, even though getting one was way harder in that time and his name does not appear in any newspaper of that time (newspapers made articles in those 8-10 children who got 1600, and he isn't in any of those).
It reminds us of many opinions real smart people actually say of the people from Mensa, that they are not humble at all, or they are just compulsive puzzle solvers who can't even math.

Third, his CTMU is a fucking word salad as everyone else has said. He does not a clear message of what the Universe is supposed to be, and he also just spouts some "metaphysical" bullshit all over the place. Not to mention how he always is trying so hard to sound or look smart with his phrasing, rather condescending and sacrificing the capacity to fucking convey your message in the process.

big yikes.

>ad hominem
>le word salad

Attached: 1544111131611.jpg (480x480, 28K)

>invent etymological chains instead of studying them

>bro hold me back bro
>bro you're lucky my bitch is here bro

Oh shit you should him he won. No one's ever claimed that and it changes Everything Forever.

You're not wrong but you still write like a fag

Atheism is dumb, but theism is not the best either.
Here's the official ranking:
1. Ignosticism
2. Theism
3. Atheism
4. Agnosticism

Dunning Kruger effect: the post

What, does your mom need a break or something? Like from all the fucking she gets, cause she's a whore? I get it, I'll stop calling her a whore.

>Ignosticism
Nice, now I feel like less of a pseud

Sorry guys, my IQ suddenly fell to 2 digits for a minute. I've read CTMU again and I'm astonished, I think my IQ is now 140 oh my god, I'm so fucking enlightened right now

Forever used to be in effect. Sadly yes, it should change everything. Back to the way it was.

>Coherent
>Metaphysical
What?

>Ignosticism
Theism uses cataphaticism and apophaticism to define God inasmuch as it is expressible in human language, although Ignosticism is true in the sense that the word 'God' by itself is relative.

Hehe

Reality itself is tautological.

His model is not that hard to understand.

>How is it oxymoronic to say god doesn't exist?
this is as far as I got through your post and I'm not a fan of Langdon but that was what the whole thing was about user, if you couldn't even parse his main point you should probably reconsider your competency here

i remember making a thread but blah blah blah it was deleted. jannies are trannies

read his actual paper, he isn't making these claims in a vacuum. the ctmu is trying to establish the mathematical structure that reality must conform to in order to allow any theory of it to have an use value.

also as for circularity i think in the intro to being in time heideggar himself refuted an imaginary person who might've claimed that he is going circular.
>Is there not, however, a manifest circularity in such an undertaking? If we must first define an entity in its Being, and if we want to formulate the question of Being only on this basis, what is this but going in a circle? In working out our question, have we not 'presupposed' something which only the answer can bring? Formal objections such as the argument about 'circular reasoning', which can easily be cited at any time in the study of first principles, are always sterile when one is considering concrete ways of investigating. When it comes to understanding the matter at hand, they carry no weight and keep us from penetrating into the field of study
for langan the project is in a similar manner, and must be to some extent tautological. but langan's goal is to not just try and get at the structure of merely Being but the underlying cognitive theoretic structure of reality that permits giveness of givens. there's probably more important things to criticize about langan's reality theory than this random quora response

Attached: 1552154328680.jpg (414x382, 52K)

I disagree about sterility. Objections to circular reasoning, to closed models bound by axioms show that reality is ontologically incomplete without perception "analyzing" it. You run precisely into this issue when you try to make any claims about reality that doesnt incorporate conscious observes as a critical factor of that reality.

The real question is whether reality is a bigger set than God or equal to God or in what relation to God. Since there is no good reason to believe reality can self-actualize, the best case for its existence is a God that is real, within reality as well as the creator of reality. One of Langans mistakes is his statement that reality is self-constrained and also "total". This cannot be because anything with constraints has its negation, its "outside". Instead what you need is an infinite, boundless actuality from which reality can emerge and has its constraints only relative to the "outside"s infiniteness. This "outside" can only be an infinite creator of reality - God.

The key issue in Langans model is his belief that God can be proven rather than suggested at. He doesnt understand that God has made knowing of him related to the faculty of faith and reason not reason alone. Why this is the case we can speculate. For a God that is primarily concerned with moral character, it is not surprising that believing in good is ultimately a question of will often informed by the moral predispositions of one's being. Langan forgets that God scoffs at earthly wisdom when it reeks of pride.

His a big dumb head.

*believing in God

why should he

Taleb believes IQ is pseudoscience

Attached: mainqimgbb8cc55f2b8703ecc127920b78aa3a42.png (602x409, 104K)

To be an academic believing in God would be equal to career suicide.

cope

AHhahaahahhahahaahahah yeah in a country where you have to be a Christian to get elected

He believes IQ used in any other way but to test for retardation is psuedoscience, which is true.

Modern academia works by establishing its own theology. The root process in academia is the substition of theistic theology with academic theology. If you dont subscribe to that (belief in the Christian God is certainly one such breaking of rules of the dominant academic ideology) then youre out. It follows that academia selects for people who are apriori opposed to God.

Only High-IQ will understand this

The Chad HS Dropout vs The Virgin Acadummy

Attached: Chris Langan's answer to What would be your advice for highly intelligent youth who have lost a (648x1980, 239K)

E T H E R E D
T
H
E
R
E
D

Is Langan the new fad?
Guenon seems like a distant memory

Where can i find those answers?

mega.nz/#F!L7pTjI7T!lXwcQmZwxEcj8Np5tXUSRg
In the "Langan's Posts" folder.

Attached: ChrisLangan.jpg (613x826, 671K)

ty

He doesn't even understand the most basic things about atheism and agnosticism. What a retard.
To be an atheist, you can't believe in a god. That doesn't mean that one has to actively believe in non existence. One might simply not care, or never have heard about any gods. Those people would also be atheist.
So Atheism is simple; do you believe in god? Yes/No
Agnosticism concerns itself with the question, whether we can know if there is a god.
Do you believe we can proof god? Yes/No.
Therefore, it's possible to be both an atheist and a gnostic. Since a theoretical possible proof for god does not disprove ones lack of faith in gods existence.

Wasn't this guy the nig that claimed to have a four digit IQ or something stupid?

>So Atheism is simple; do you believe in god? Yes/No
>Agnosticism concerns itself with the question, whether we can know if there is a god.
Those are not the most common definitions of either atheism or agnosticism.

he claimed to have a super high IQ, but the number he stated was beyond what an IQ test could result in
he also obsessively edits his wikipedia page to make himself look good, and routinely makes new accounts to do so

>So Atheism is simple; do you believe in god? Yes/No Agnosticism concerns itself with the question, whether we can know if there is a god.
Do you believe we can proof god? Yes/No. Therefore, it's possible to be both an atheist and a gnostic.

Attached: 989.jpg (578x566, 27K)

Sure, gnostic atheism is possible, just like agnostic theist is possible.

>Sure, gnostic atheism is possible, just like agnostic theist is possible.

Attached: pp,550x550.u2.jpg (366x550, 34K)

sounds like /ourguy/. I'd definitely fuck with my own wikipedia article. So many dumbfucks place all of their trust in that awful system.

They're the most simple, most basic ones, though. And the definitions I most often hear. ...Except from Christcucks trying to strawman atheists.

With what of what I've said exactly are you having trouble understanding?

>They're the most simple, most basic ones, though.
No. They're definitions you would use in a sociological study to know how religious the general population is. They're not good for philosophical debates. The concept of belief is too vague and personal, for starters.

The theist position is "God exists".
The atheist position is "God doesn't exist".
The agnostic position is "God either exist or doesn't exist, but we don't know".
They're all pretty bad and can be discarded quickly, but the theist position at least makes some sense if you assume the most common definition of God.

Well by that definition of those worse -(a)gnosticism operating on the spectrum of knowledge and (a)theism on that of belief- is is possible to be an agnostic Christian (one who believes in the Christian God, but makes no claims of knowledge) and a gnostic atheist (one that does not believe in God(s) and also makes claims with regards to knowledge - either that he knows, or it is possible to know that God(s) does/do not exist(s)). What's the problem here?

Not true. Very few atheists will assert that God doesn't exist. They will however say that there isn't sufficient evidence to claim that he does. Many Christians will also make no knowledge claims, but those embracing evidential faith will claim that there is sufficient evidence to believe that He does.

I'm not trying to have a personal fight with "most atheists" or "very few atheists" (whoever they are).
If we can't even agree on what the atheist position is it's all useless.

Well, I don't agree with your definition, because it doesn't describe my position, nor many other atheists' position. What you're describing are gnostic atheists who make absolute knowledge claims. The fact that there is a distinction with a significant difference, validates the separate categorisation. The only thing these two categories of atheists have in common is the fact that they don't believe in God(s).

>To be an atheist, you can't believe in a god
Then you are an agnostic, idiot

Not him, but no. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim.

>Agnosticism is a knowledge claim.
No, but atheism is.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
Atheism is a belief claim. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim.

Attached: 9999999999.png (738x260, 35K)

This definiton is wrong.
Atheism = There is no god
Agnosticism = I can´t say if there is a god

BTFO

>webster

Attached: webster.jpg (640x480, 40K)

>If you do not actively disbelieve in God(s) (do not actively believe in the non-existence of God(s) (a) you are an atheist
True
>If you also do not actively believe in the existence of God(s) (b), then you are an agnostic.
What does "also" mean here? That the two (a and b) are separate propositions and either one can exist in the absence of the other? Not true. The former (a) cannot exist in absence of the former (b) and makes it redundant. One can believe or disbelieve with, or without making any absolute claims with regards to knowledge. Consider the claim that the Universe is 5 minutes old, but displays the appearance of a longer past. While I cannot prove this is false, in my view, there is enough evidence to not believe this. Which would make me an agnostic a-"the Universe is 5 minutes old, but displays the appearance of a longer past". Some might claim to hold proof that this is in fact the case, which I would obviously challenge. Conversely, one can be an agnostic 'theist' of the "he Universe is 5 minutes old, but displays the appearance of a longer past" variety by refraining from making absolute knowledge claims, but judging the evidence to stack up in favour of this proposition. Not to mention there is non-evidence based faith claims. A clinical retard can believe in God(s) in the absence of evidence too, while claiming that he 'knows' there is a/many God(s) without being able to produce an argument for why that is the case. The same is true for a disbeliever who is clinically retarded. The former would be a gnostic theist, while the latter a gnostic atheist. If they were able to produce something that they view as proofs for their positions, whether they be right, or wrong, they would still be gnostic a/theists.

Can you explain why you see this as a distinction without a difference?

Not by the working definition of any dictionary of any language.

>Langan
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

Daily reminder it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.

princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Religion December 1g_snd.pdf
nber.org/papers/w21052.pdf

Daily reminder the overwhelming majority of leading scientists are atheist

nature.com/articles/28478

Daily reminder religious people are less intelligent according to dozens of studies.

diyhpl.us/~nmz787/pdf/The_Relation_Between_Intelligence_and_Religiosity__A_Meta-Analysis_and_Some_Proposed_Explanations.pdf

Daily reminder religious people are less educated

economist.com/news/international/21623712-how-education-makes-people-less-religiousand-less-superstitious-too-falling-away

Religious people are literally a lesser breed of human

Attached: mooney1.jpg (630x750, 73K)

t. agnostic

>Not by the working definition of any dictionary of any language
not an argument, we are talking logic here:
Theism = god
A-theism = no god
Agnosticism= maybe god or no god

>it has been empirically proven religiosity stifles scientific innovation.
No, empirical data suggests a correlation between religiousness and low scientific innovation.

These are VERY different things and someone who obviously doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation should NOT be calling other people lesser humans.

Just as an example, it is completely coherent with your data that scientific advances CAUSE atheism and there is as much evidence for that as there is for atheism CAUSING scientific advancement.

>Just as an example, it is completely coherent with your data that scientific advances CAUSE atheism and there is as much evidence for that as there is for atheism CAUSING scientific advancement.
this, i think its called auto-correlation

>High-IQ thread
>Atheists getting beaten the fuck out
I expected no less

Those are logically sound definitions if we were to redefine words user, but since there are more possible positions than those exemplified by your definitions, why not accept the dictionary definitions which increase descriptive latitude while maintaining logical consistency (ie: Theism: belief in God(s); Atheism: lack of belief, or a disbelief in God(s); Agnosticism: the absence of knowledge claims with regards to the non/existence of God(s))?

God exists, therefore he exists.

You're adding lots of noise to the discussion. Maybe that's why all your philosophical discussions drag on?

>The atheist position is "God doesn't exist".
That's false. If an alien has never heard of any kind of god, would that alien be atheist? Yes, it would be. Because it's not a theist. That means atheism needs to be the lack of faith in a god, not faith in the lack of a god.

>The agnostic position is "God either exist or doesn't exist, but we don't know".
That's not the agnostic position, you're adding theism into it. Gnostics and Agnostics make no judgement whether god exists or not. That's what Atheism and theism are for. A/gnostic is a position on whether we can know.

"We will never know, but personally I believe there is somebody out there." is a valid agnostic, theist position to take.

Your definitions don't line up with reality.

The fuck is that supposed to mean? Since when can one be an atheist and believe in god?

this

he sounds too in-autistic to be high IQ

>reading comprehension

how do you know whether someone believes in god or not?

Langanism really puts the fedora on theism.

This user was right. This thread has been embarrassing.

Because one of the arguments Langan makes is that these definitions are logically inconsistent. With a lack of belief you are an agnostic and not an atheist.

Yes, please make use of yours.

You mean the alien? How can it believe in god if it never heard of the concept?

Anyway, I'm out. You christains have been circling the drain ever since the enlightenment. There's no new thought coming from any of you. Just a slow and reluctant process of washing out of christian positions.

The only posts that lack argumentation and resort to name-calling are those of Langanists.

Why are they logically inconsistent? Unfold Langan's argument for us then.

>You mean the alien?
no, i mean anyone.

my point is you're doing sociology and trying to shoehorn it into a philosophical debate.

Quibbling over the precise definition of atheism betrays you all for the cretins that you are.

His argumentation is that the terms atheism and agnosticism are flawed when it comes to apply logic to it. Read the pic related someone posted again.

Attached: 1560001218178.png (738x257, 44K)

I have. I've already stated my disagreements and explained why the dictionary definitions are logically sound while they allow for more descriptive latitude. . This user's post sums it even better , especially the part where he says that atheism is the lack of faith in a god, not faith in the lack of a god. One does not necessarily have to believe in the non-existence of god(s) to be an atheist. Please state what you see wrong with our definitions, why they are logically inconsistent and what we might have missed in Langan's objections.

Why are americans so obssessed with proving god? Literally every developed nation on earth has put the god question aside and confined it to the realm of religion.

The only reason anyone is even following this pseud is because his ideas are compatible with their fervently anti-materialist outlook in life
>look he believes in a higher power and has high IQ, what now reddit?
>pfft academia is irrelevant anyway, its nothing but a bunch of science worshipers lmao

Pretty sure American (neo)protestant evangelicalism is just as annoying to atheists, as it is to Christians. And they're gaining ground on the back of reactionary identitarian populism especially in former eastern bloc countries in need of funding.

Because "lack of faith in god". A lack alone doesn´t hold up for something to be defined, f.e. the opposite of a good person is not a "no-good person" its a bad person. You have to set a positive value to uniquely qualify the being of an atheist, otherwise your definition is flawed. So what actually *does" an atheist do (not what does he not do)?

An agnostic in the true sense is somebody who actively believes that the answer to the God question is unknowable. It's an epistemological claim as opposed to the metaphysical claims of theism vs atheism.

they're gaining ground from pseuds like Langan and JBPeterson larping as serious thinkers while cowering behind the 'non-denomination' label.

That's all there is to it.

Attached: 1547298879475.png (700x372, 167K)

Atheism as lack of faith in God is an incoherent concept. If you lack faith in a giant unicorn you arent an aunicornist you are merely nothing. When we say atheism we are talking abouz negative polarity of a positive statement of theism. Anybody who doesnt know that theism is a possibility cant be an atheist. An alien who has never heard of God isnt an atheist, he has no logical relation by which he can be identified.

Which contemporary philosopher is a more "serious" thinker than Langan?

sam harris, nick land, amazing atheist,, the list goe's on...

lmao

Imagine believing Chris Langan's IQ is any higher than 115.

>A lack alone doesn´t hold up for something to be defined
This doesn't make any sense to me. "The lack" is the definition/category. Why is it logically inconsistent to define something as lacking a property as to assert its distinction from something that has that property? Afairyism is simply the lack of belief in fairies. Some, but not all afairyists, have a faith in the non-existence of fairies. Some, but not all AF may not have ever heard of fairies. Some, but not all AF may, or may not have a position on whether they (can) know whether fairies exist, or not. All are afairyists however; (ie: neither of them believe in fairies).

As for what do afairyists do? I'm not sure. What do fairyists do? I certainly know that there is no consensus in the fairyists community on what a fairyists should do, in order to be a fairyist. Other than believe that fairies exist. In the same manner, afairyists only require to not hold that belief. Also, there's not as much accusation of heresy in the ranks of afairyists. So what to (a)fairyists do? They beleive, or not believe in fairies is the only certain answer I can come up with. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this line of enquiry along how belief, or lack of belief maps out on action. Maybe you could explain further...
Non-denominationals are a broad spectrum. And Peterson is basically a "cultural Christian". He doesn't believe in any of the Christian metaphysical propositions. Nu-Anglican basically. They're like atheist Christians to me - to the autists out there, this term isn;t meant to be taken seriously. But he's used as a useful idiot by various Churches. I'd have no issue, if all Christians were like him. The problems are the groups that take advantage of his position and his availability to all of them - probably as a reactionary measure.

you can't have a lack of belief in something you've never heard of. by that logic we are all an infinity number of a-isms.

>by that logic we are all an infinity number of a-isms.
yes

Yes

>yes
no

there can only be a state of indeterminacy between you and something you have no awareness of. to define that as a-something is just faulty gymnastics to gain ground for atheism.

belief or lack of belief always already presupposes an object to which it hinges. to speak of belief or lack of belief is only coherent in relation to something, it cannot stand on its own. thus the claim that someone not aware of God as a concept is an atheist (lacking belief in) is incoherent.

>belief or lack of belief always already presupposes an object to which it hinges
As does agnosticism

>Do you believe in god?
If any philosopher has trouble with that, then it's futile to talk to them, since they're useless. Sorry.

What's even the point of your aside? Even if we can't assertain whether someone believes in god or not, the theoretical underpinning of the question remains the same. Either, they believe and are theists or they don't believe and are atheists.

Philosophy courses should involve something sensible like cooking, woodworking or smithing.

>ut he's used as a useful idiot by various Churches
not just to churches, but to many people even ITT who subscribe to it purely based on the knowledge that it somehow validates idealism and 'god'. It's all just a vehicle for claiming superiority over the 'reddit materialists', which this thread is an example of. Nothing more nothing less.

>Either, they believe and are theists or they don't believe and are atheists.
which is fine, but that's sociology, not philosophy.
you're doing surveys ("do you believe in god?") and then categorizing people accordingly.
this is pretty much irrelevant to the philosophical discussion about the existence of god.

this is simply where we're at. science will not be able to move past the hard problem of consciousness or cosmological problems. if you want to have any "progress", we have to look at this. its unfortunate for atheists that all ways out literally point to God, but that's what it is.

Academia is billions of dollars in deep of course, so they're trying their best to avoid the conclusion. But there's really no room to move forward past this point.

The bottom line is that you can't look good if you call yourself an atheist. You can try to change the definition of atheism into something not retarded, but nobody is going to buy it.

Take the red pill:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

Not in disagreement there, but I think it's his inability to state his position in relation to Christianity that is more damaging and weaponized by actual Christians, while his actual position weakens theism and dilutes all its tenets. None of the priests, vicars, pastors, Trump family members who've invited him to various Christian events believe in what he believes. And they wouldn't call anyone else with those beliefs a Christian, were it not for their influence.
>it is STILL the case that god may exist, therefore he exists. Check mate, atheists.

>science can't explain cosmological problems anymore

Attached: 1532452067579.jpg (688x800, 69K)

Second this

Also: How is Yea Forums so full of brainlets today? Summer?

What is consciousness? And don't say electrical signals in the brain or I'll shart.

>If you lack faith in a giant unicorn you arent an aunicornist you are merely nothing
You call him someone who negates faith in the giant unicorn. Call it what you like if you don't like anunicornism. I won't quibble over words if your autism prevents you from accepting aunicornism, but accept that you call him "someone who negates the faith in the giant unicorn". And that can map out in various ways.

>You call him
Yeah, but thats not a definition

Not him, but consciousness is an internal qualitative experience of any physical system. Something having consciousness means that it is like something to be something. What now? I'm down for the Socratic method, but don't put a fedora on your theism. Follow through and be honest.

You are* someone who negates faith in the giant unicorn.

negation isn´t determination, actually its the other way round.

If i am someone who negates god, i can be anything, but a theist.

You cant negate something you have no awareness of. If x does not exist in the alphabet im not negating x by not being aware of it.

Thats to say you can only be an atheist if you know what God is conceptually. An alien definitely isnt an atheist.

>A lack alone doesn´t hold up for something to be defined
Yes, it does. Take bakers and non-bakers. The non-bakers aren't actively not baking man.

Wtf is a non-baker

kek

>The non-bakers aren't actively not baking man.
And thats a tautology not a definition

It's someone who isn't a baker. Otherwise known as "not a baker".

What I learn from this thread is that we are all epistemological agnostics it seems

>the philosophical discussion about the existence of god
Is irrelevant to the topic at hand. We're talking about what categories theism and gnosticism are. Get your head out of your ass and come back to earth from your world of forms fairy tale.

>I'm doing surveys
The believe in god or lack thereof is the one quality that separates atheists from theists, man. If we can't use that in this discussion, because it's supposedly sociology, then what words do you want us to use?

Fine. Take Pistors and Apistors then.

Are we still discussing Langans tautological circular proof performance art? BORING. This thread is now about panpsychism and the combination problem. What are feasible dimensions and quantities of consciousness.

True.

You’re right. We should just attack diffuse, poorly defined positions. It’s way easier to win that way.

No, they're just not defined to your liking.

What exactly do you think is Langan's position on consciousness?

You mean as in barely defined? I agree. That isn’t to my liking.
That was a quick reply. Do you just post up in Langan threads waiting to defend him?

I have no clue to be honest. Not up to date with bouncer-literature. I'm behind on many other things that I've prioritised before it. Hopefully your line of enquiry meant to prove how science can't explain cosmological problems isn't predicated on me having read this person extensively.

I am a theist btw

Chris langan (195 IQ) seems like he would benefit enormously from reading some Wittgenstein (198 IQ)
The first 100 lines of Philosophical investigations dismantles (dissolves) every argument he's ever made.

I don't understand Langanists objection to pic related. Please explain why these aren't valid categories by which theism and atheism are belief claims and gnosticism and agnosticism are knowledge claims.

Attached: atheism.jpg (672x482, 118K)

But Gnosticism is edgy /x/ boys claiming they’re stuck in a reptilian soul trap

Isn’t he a pantheist?
Why do fundementalist Christians claim he proves the Bible and everything in it when he literally claims anything but?

>Wittgenstein (198 IQ)
*190 ftfy

You're accusing Langan of presupposing a theistic God when they follow from the more Spinozist axioms of his system. Id like to see your responses to his 3 reality principles

Where did he claim that?

>What does this say about God? First, if God is real, then God inheres in the comprehensive reality syntax, and this syntax inheres in matter. Ergo, God inheres in matter, and indeed in its space-time substrate as defined on material and supramaterial levels. This amounts to pantheism, the thesis that God is omnipresent with respect to the material universe.

>agnosticism
I know that i don´t know

>evidence of existence by definition.
invalid

He qualifies this with some more traditionally Christian views, like belief in an afterlife remarkably aligned with Aquinas'

I'm over here detecting resonances between ante-rational Egyptian metaphysics and Langan's God and you're playing sudoku. Low IQ spiritlets need to be gassed. Yawn.

It includes claims that you don't know, or that it can't be known. So an agnostic theist would either say that the evidence in favour of the existence of a god is sufficient for him to believe, but that he can't ascertain absolute knowledge, or that it simply can't be known (due to epistemological convictions, or whatever). Conversely, for atheists, but for non-existence instead. What's the issue with this?

Yes but he also doesn’t believe in crap like everyone but Christians going to hell, which is generally the argument trying to be passed when people call upon him

gnostic just means knowledge

Obviously, so Langan gets co-opted by retards, so what

>agnostic theist
wtf is that?

Langan has an immeasurable IQ, tested over 200. Broke the charts. That is probably the reason why you can't understand what he is saying. His writing is perfect and concise.

Notice how everyone Langan hater repeats the same things?

1) That he is a bad writer
2) IQ is 'meaningless'
3) No 'academic' takes him serious
4) Pseudo intellectual
5) Has never produced anything (despite CTMU)

Literally no one can refute anything he says. Amazing.

It's in the post you replied to.

go to bed langan

I know he can bench a lot, but can he really bench 700lbs

The dude believes the will can survive and conquer death. That's based.

Woah Buddhism dude!

But it doesn´t matter if you are an agnostic theist or atheist

I have a feeling you actually edit wikipedia pages

He doesn't get the difference between what something is and whether we can make a valid judgement on it.

>In a 2014 radio interview, Langan said that he has worked on the P versus NP problem and thinks he can prove that P does not equal NP. However, he states that he think his work might not be reviewed by the community, and so does not wish to spend the time and effort.
BASED

I don't understand what you mean by 'it doesn't matter'.

CTMU isn't hard to understand. It's nothing unique though and more metaphysics rather than theoretical physics, as he likes to claims. It really just boils down to the same monism and double-aspect theory of Schopenhauer. It's just a bunch of Chopra-tiered pseudoscience that ultimately defends something reminiscent of David Bohm's Implicate Order or the panentheism of Vedanta where the "underlying essence" of reality is a kind of oneness that is unified with the multiplicity of appearances. Not that difficult to understand. If you're curious to understand what Langan's obscurantist texts are getting at, then I just recommend reading about David Bohm's Implicate and Explicate order and looking up "double aspect theory" and monism. There's really nothing mind-blowing about CTMU.

I really hate narcissistic faggots like Langan. They act like they have come across something truly world shattering, but it's just a repeat of the old. Langan just has the addition of being an arrogant, narcissistic faggot who relies on pseudoscientific jargon. Like I've said, just spend time reading about double-aspect theory, various forms of monism, and David Bohm's Implicate and Explicate order, and you'll understand what CTMU is about without the headache. For example, read image.

It really just boils down to the claim that monism = pluralism, or in other words that the multiplicity of appearances are in unity with the monistic underlying source. Something that the modern West has been obsessing about to an insane degree. I get the point, you guys jerk off to monism and nondualism.

Attached: langan.jpg (479x105, 14K)

What are you saying bro

Basado moral clarity poster.

What, in your opinion, supercedes it?

I'm saying Nun is the hypostasization of unbound telesis :^)

>where the "underlying essence" of reality is a kind of oneness that is unified with the multiplicity of appearances.
I despise this concept so much

I have my own philosophical theory that I have been working on for 4+ years, but I will not disclose it here due to fear of being plagiarized. It has been a work of progress, but I think since last week I really came across gold. However, given the way academia or gaining exposure for one's views work, I may not bother going through the hassle.

Why?

kekoos, this is pretty good. go on.

My own approach is different and much better. However, the thing about my approach is that it is highly novel and could start a new kind of zeitgeist. To be honest, I am really suppressing myself from giving my views.

It doesn´t matter, because you are either an agnostic

yawn, it's nothing so radical a taste could spoil it, I promise you. You're still writing in English

On instinctive aesthetic grounds. I hate the idea of homogenized reality instead of the open expanse of space and time and vast multiplicity of quality within.
ebin

>In a 2014 radio interview, Langan said that he has worked on the P versus NP problem and thinks he can prove that P does not equal NP. However, he states that he think his work might not be reviewed by the community, and so does not wish to spend the time and effort.
THE RACE IS ON

John wheeler's participatory universe describes the self-causation of the sun-god Atum. Shu and Tefnut are the CTMU (the dyad as an immanently evolving syntax), while Atum himself is the principle of its ontological consistency

I don't know if you have any severe mental limitations, but I'm afraid I can't converse with you in any meaningful way.

>THE RACE IS ON
Another Zizek debate?

this is excellent work

I saw Chris Langan at a grocery store in Missouri yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything.
He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”
I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying.
The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.
When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.

>its another critique of correlationism episode

yawn. Well I'll give you the benefit of the doubt at least

>but I'm afraid I can't converse with you in any meaningful way.
Story of my life ;_;
t. IQ 141

>its another critique of correlationism
No I didn't imply anything of the sort.

stale pasta

How uncanny. Same ^_^. Major temperamental differences though. I'm not a bad faith mono-syllabic cunt.

Is this flower blue or red? Doesn't matter, it's still a flower.

The telos of the universe is the "saturation" of ontological syntax with pre-ontological freedom, just like it is necessary that the Nile/waters of chaos periodically rejuvenate the parched order of the solar kingdom/actuality

I don´t think you replied to the same person, throughout

It very much sounds like Whitehead from where I'm standing. Identity is not necessarily homogeneity. Ya dun goofed.

Not that user, but the thought of someone knowing who Langan is, disliking him, but not being aware of the pasta, or template, however improbable that may be, is worth the cringe for the rest of us.

It solely depends on the question

>It very much sounds like Whitehead from where I'm standing
I said it was an instinctive aesthetic dislike, how does that sound like Whitehead to you

Could be. Proof that IQ tests can overestimate intelligence.

Are you one of those people that think colours are not real because egg-shell could be off-white to another?

Misread the post. Regardless, another philosophy of heterogeneous, radically incomplete multiplicity etc. doesn't really excite me, since the identity you seen to be rejecting is always referring to that in virtue of which difference remains intelligible as difference in the first place. Perhaps this is a trivial point to you

Nope

>the identity you seen to be rejecting is always referring to that in virtue of which difference remains intelligible as difference
Yes it is that that I'm rejecting, and I'm not replacing it with difference but a question mark, and not the sort that requires an answer but the sort that is inherently and always a question mark.

Well at least you recognize what I'm saying. Okay

He's one of those people that claims that it depends on the question, but when asked to clarify his own question by detailing what he means by 'matter', he doesn't seem to think it matters.

Attached: Untitled.png (652x2704, 282K)

What you're referring to is what's called "theory." And when I said I'm not interested in theory, what I meant is, I'm not interested in posturing--using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there's no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can't. So I'm not interested in that kind of posturing. Langan is an extreme example of it. I don't see anything to what he's saying. Why this is influential, I haven't the slightest idea. I don't see anything there that should be influential.

Then no, it does not depend on the question.

>Why this is influential
Not to worry, it's not. It is with some 14 year olds and unaccomplished schizos who can't reign in their inadequacies.

We can debate whether Langan is right or wrong. In my opinion he is wrong about some key things (like claiming God is provable with maths). But anyone who bases his criticism od Langan based on the fact that he is dense to read I can dismiss as a total brainlet. If you spent 5 minutes thinking about what Langan wrote it is not difficult to comprehend. Im inclined to think that people who cannot "decipher" Langan's ideas are total idiots. As a mattet of fact I'm starting to believe CTMU irrespective of whether its true or wrong should be used as a litmus test to determine whether someone is a total brainlet.

Attached: epicurus.jpg (500x400, 86K)

>whether its true or wrong should be used as a litmus test to determine whether someone is a total brainlet.
I haven't read the flyer distributed by this bouncer, but I'm thinking your conclusion isn't really based on thinking.

Implying evil doesnt come from free choices of entities other than God and used by God to bring even greater good and glory. Implying suffering is bad. Atheists: brainlets since 33ad

Can we make Langan posting a thing? The amount of butthurt ITT is hilarious.

I cant communicate with brainlets thats why anyone who cannot comprehend CTMU should be barred from public intellectual discourse.

>evil comes from free choice
Wow big brain over here! Now take the next step: who created free will, and did he know the outcomes of this decision?
>bring even greater good and glory
An omnipotent god will create whatever good and glory he wants, why would be be limited by the need to impose free will in order to do so?
>Implying suffering is bad
Read Job you brainlet

Any posting like this works
the same happened with Guenon

A schizoid leaflet handed out by a bouncer sounds like a perfectly reasonable barrier to entry. I'm down.

I wish Whitehead posting was more common

Of course he did he wants you to suck it up and stop whining like a little baby about muh suffering muh pain.

Free will is a gift not something imposed upon.

Seems like you should read Job and stop whining about a little pain bucko.

>Remember guys he worked with his hands dont take him seriously

Brainlet nigger trash

>Free will is a gift
>Suffering is a gift
>God wants us to suffer, he considers it a gift
This is exactly the type of loose, psuedotheological claims that makes religious people look fucking crazy. There is a reason God never tires to justify his actions, and rebukes the Job's idiot friends saying the same shit you are, that suffering has meaning and a higher purpose.

Thats because it does. Dont you know angels almost envy (not actually as that would be a sin) man's ability to suffer?

I didn't say it was an argument. Can't take insults, battyman?

You're a terrible Christian, user. Thought you should know.

no way he has benched 700

>there is no shitty writing, just shitty readers
You don't believe that yourself, do you?

Where did you pull that from? I never read that in the bible. In fact, Ha-Satan, who is considered either an angel or another God, makes it clear that he thinks Job will rebuke God for nothing more than having to suffer, and he does. Have you read the bible user? Or are these like Sunday school mottos you are wheeling out?

>Thats because it does
God rebuked the people saying suffering has meaning because suffering has meaning? So he's not only a prick he's a liar too? What do you mean user?

OP so far is right, but of course this place is a cesspool of english majors which are the absolute bottom of the barrel retard slaves 90% of the time.

In Langan's case, and in light of this thread, by golly he should

>In my opinion he is wrong about some key things (like claiming God is provable with maths).
watch your mouth, boy

Attached: main-qimg-c0f9ebcd54c95e940fe595e2eb723c26.png (609x532, 300K)

“If the angels were capable of envy, they would envy us for two things: one is the receiving of Holy Communion, and the other is suffering.”

― Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska, Diary of Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska: Divine Mercy in My Soul

Job complained quite passionately but never actually rebuked God.

>Saint Maria Faustina Kowalsk
Hey man. I heard lil Freddy two blocks down from me say otherwise. And he's a devout Christian too.

I have a feeling you're not Catholic

What a megalomaniac asshole. The clearest sign that what he says has only limited substance, because like any narcissist he spends his time instead dressing up mediocre ideas in fancy language.

No wonder the pseuds on Yea Forums eat it up. It's not that difficult, yet appears so by being obtuse.

Well actually he does, but God comes down and corrects him. That doesn't matter though, the point was about the opinion of the "angel" Ha-Satan towards suffering

Complaining is not the same as rebuke. You have a pretty niche reading of Job if you believe he rebuked God.

I have a book of Christian mystics right beside me actually, turns out Jesus was actually a woman and our Mother all along. Must be true because a Saint wrote it down.

So this is the power of protestantism

Therefore I will not restrain my mouth;
I will speak in the anguish of my spirit;
I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.
Am I the sea, or a sea monster,
that you set a guard over me?
When I say, ‘My bed will comfort me,
my couch will ease my complaint,’
then you scare me with dreams
and terrify me with visions,
so that I would choose strangling
and death rather than my bones.
I loathe my life; I would not live forever.
Leave me alone, for my days are a breath.
What is man, that you make so much of him,
and that you set your heart on him,
visit him every morning
and test him every moment?
How long will you not look away from me,
nor leave me alone till I swallow my spit?
If I sin, what do I do to you, you watcher of mankind?
Why have you made me your mark?
Why have I become a burden to you?
Why do you not pardon my transgression
and take away my iniquity?
For now I shall lie in the earth;
you will seek me, but I shall not be.

Okay, what is he saying?

Julian of Norwich was writing like a century before Protestantism was even created. You are a fool and a terrible Christian.

Have you read the rest of the Bible? I can tell my father to get lost as well without actually meaning it. This is an obvious poetic device that is consistent throughout the Bible, otherwise literally every major Biblical figure rebuked God.

Job is specifically known for the problem of theodicy for the very reason Job rejects God. It's literally the whole point of the book. His friends were the ones defending God's actions and God tells them Job was right all along and that his friends were wrong. I have had a Catholic professor explain this to me in a religious studies classroom. This story has been studied for millennia user, you are literally 3000 years behind in your theology right now...

He claims his critiques will end up in hell. This Langan is a joke. I would not be surprised if he was the one who made this thread.

he's absolutely right, although it is a petty reterritorialization of the simple social connotations of "God"

He doesn't get the difference between the answer to a question and whether we can answer it.

His friends were telling him that he was being justly punished for some thing he obviously did not commit. They were not defending God's actions, they were mistaken about what God's actions were in the first place. Job laments his fate since he knows he is actually blameless. While there is a lot of bitter complaining, it's not that unusual for other pious characters in the Bible to complain either. It's quite an assumption to suggest that Job in any essential manner gave up on God because of his lamentation, one not very well backed up by the context.

If you understood what he was saying, you'd agree.

I'm actually amazed you think Job is just another book, it's considered one of the most radically different books in the bible by both Jews and Christians. It's so well established you don't need to go father than fucking wikipedia. Are you a Christian user? Have you read the bible?
>Job's responses represent one of the most radical restatements of Israelite theology in the Hebrew Bible.[12] He moves away from the pious attitude as shown in the prologue and began to berate God for the disproportionate wrath against him. He sees God as, among others, intrusive and suffocating (7:17-19); unforgiving and obsessed with destroying a human target (7:20-21); angry (9:13; 14:13; 16:9; 19:11); fixated on punishment (10:13-14); and hostile and destructive (16:11-14). He then shifts his focus from the injustice that he himself suffers to God's governance of the world. He suggests that the wicked have taken advantage of the needy and the helpless, who remain in significant hardship, but God does nothing to punish them (24:1-12).

Yeah...no. He claims to spread awareness of the "true metaphysical structure of reality". Just no. I guarantee you he's not.
Am I talking to Langan? Could be, nobody else could be so boneheaded about such an inane point. Do you think anabolica have ruined his balls by now?

I'm not considering Job "just another book". I'm arguing that the idea that Job rebuked God is far-fetched and his lamentations are not the key point of the book. Job's lamentations are not unique. You can find them in the rest of the Bible. Pious people often poetically lament their fate. The point of Job is theodicy as you pointed out, but the idea that Job rebuked God in a meaningful way is far-fetched.

Why are brainlets so threatened by this dude?

I can't tell if this is cope, indoctrination, or just a general ignorance of the bible as a literary work. No, you can't find lamentations like Job's in the rest of the bible, that's simply false, moreover you will certainly not find God agreeing with those lamentations like you find in Job.
>After the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. 8 Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.”

GAWDEEEEEEM

Why don't you enlighten us brainlets then what wisdom that guy is spreading?
For such a swole brain like yourself it should be no problem translating his writing into something the masses can understand.

im not eve sure what you are disagreeing with. langan is including considerations of how a conscious observer should be able to acquire any knowledge of reality. this is why i brought up heideggar. they make a similar gambit in that simply denying their method potentially leaves metaphysics a subject that is a fundamental deadend

>Langan forgets that God scoffs at earthly wisdom when it reeks of pride.
doesn't seem like you even understand langan's conception of god lol. it is much less of an anthropomorphic entity with such a naive personality. it is much similar to a sort of pantheistic thing, but there is more nuance that separates him from that as well. fundamentally, what the pantheist identifies as god (all of reality), is only the 'mind of god' - something that is fundamentally holographic of a larger thing. the fundamental identity of god is actually a realm of zero constraint.

ctmucommunity.org/wiki/God
ctmucommunity.org/wiki/UBT

i don't even understand what they are criticizing him on. it's just a tiny quora post that barely scratches langan's system of thought. the ctmu paper is also only 56 pages, and while it can be difficult to read, there are certainly harder to parse texts. it really only gets difficult when he starts mentioning mathematical concepts you haven't really learned before. it was for this reason that i took a break from reading the paper because i felt i should've read more background material.

one of langan's central themes is the hegelian and aristotilean notion that 'the real is rational and the rational is real'. essentially that reality is a product of 'cognitive' processes and that cognitive categories are also categories of reality. while this isn't a very new idea, his formulation and attempt to prove it is novel. from this he also necessitates an isomorphism between reality and (formal) language if scientific theories are to be possible in predicting anything (this should be comfortable to an analytical philosopher... also this is why i've taken time off reading him since the more philosophy you know, the more his work makes sense). this language reality isomorphism is really where he is able to introduce more mathematical sophistication.

i think this reading is rather good too:
cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/618/1040

Attached: JPEG_20190510_035215.png (1024x1024, 1.22M)