You just made yourself sound like “Kyle of DeVry Institute”.
(Watch the latest episode of South Park and you’ll understand.)
Perhaps the universe is the first cause. That seems a lot more simple than an endless stream of pre-causes. Then again, the chances of humans answering “The Big Question” are similar to a microbe’s chance at getting a college degree.
Ahhh, but Doubticus! Ponder this. Our cells in the human body are outnumbered about 100/1 by cells that are not ours. The cells belong to varying microorganisms including microbes that live symbioticly and some not so symbioticly with us. When we go to college and acquire a degree the presence of these microbes may have influenced our progression to allow us to finish. They may even have sayso into who we eventually marry because of their involvement in Phermone developement. So you can’t make a statement that microbes don’t have a chance at getting a college degree, Mankind doesn’t totally understand the communication possibilities between us and the 99 percent of us that isn’t really us.
My point in mentioning my master’s degree in linguistics was not to show that I’m smart. I was trying to make the point to Rickymouse that the posters to the SDMB are generally pretty smart and well read, so it’s not a good idea to patronize them in his posts. When he wrote, “. . . Many English words have germanic base . . .”, he simultaneously was assuming that most people here are ignorant of basic facts about the history of the English language and managing to get those facts wrong himself. It’s hard to tell what Rickymouse actually knows, but anyone with the slightest knowledge of the history of the English language knows that it’s derived from Proto-Germanic (and hence from Proto-Indo-European). He doesn’t know to capitalize “germanic” and he doesn’t seem to know that the majority of words commonly used by an English speaker are derived from Proto-Germanic.
It’s hard to tell what Rickymouse knows about anything, since his posts are so confused that it’s hard to tell what he’s saying. Does he really not know how to spell “Yahweh” or “Rumpelstiltskin” or “deceive” or “your” or "venison? His posts are pontificating about matters that he actually knows little about. In post #20, RitterSport implies that Rickymouse posts like he’s on drugs.
Look, Rickymouse, the people on the SDMB are reasonably smart. They can tell when you’re faking it. If you don’t check your facts before you post and don’t express your ideas in a coherent fashion, they will call you on it. Perhaps you can get away with incoherent rambling elsewhere, but you can’t on the SDMB.
One more fact that you got wrong, Rickymouse: There are 10 times as many intestinal bacteria in a human body as there are cells, not 100 times as many.
You’re quite correct to challenge me, it turns out I was slightly off in my stat!
I was quoting from the philpapers survey of almost 1,000 philosophers:
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
It actually finds 14.6% to be theists so I should have rounded up to 15.
Here’s the “straight dope”.
http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm
God exists.
That’s a logical and mathematical certainty.
Don
For those of you who don’t know about Christopher Langan, the creator of the website linked to in Don Blazys’s post, here’s the Wikipedia entry on him:
Langan is a perfect example of what happens when you’re utterly brilliant and have no one else to check your ideas against. He’s created his own little philosophical system that claims to explain everything. Is it correct? Well, who knows? When someone as brilliant as Langan refuses to cooperate with anyone else, it’s impossible to know whether it really makes any sense or is just endless noodling around with its own bizarre terminology. Langan is not a nutcase. He’s not like a number of other such very intelligent people who’ve created their own crazy little philosophical systems that sound great initially but don’t ultimately make any sense, mostly because their creators are insane. Langan, however, is a brilliant person who is too arrogant to listen to anyone else.
What if the word God meant the total of all that exists(and ever exixted), not a Supreme being but being?
Hey! I am in my 80’s and I am not hanging any hopes on if there is or isn’t a God! I feel that If there is a god I can’t do anything about it, and if there isn’t I can’t change that anyway. I don’t believe anything truly ends just changes, no not into a different anima,l or form but, what I was before i was conceived, Don’t say I know, but I let facts take care of themselves.
That one is easy to answer-I looked it up in the dictionary, and it doesn’t.
Quoting Wendell Wagner:
A lot of people understand the CTMU, and via that understanding, know that it is both true and correct.
On the contrary, considering the sheer amount of mindless hostility that Chris Langan has encountered since releasing the CTMU, I think that he has been more than patient with regards to both listening to and replying to his critics.
The fact that those replies, which should have enlightened most of those supposedly intelligent atheistic academicians but instead only bruised their fragile egos, is truly unfortunate, because the war against ignorance (which is indeed “taking longer than we thought”) will now have to be waged against them as well.
Don.
[QUOTE=Bertrand Russell]
A phrase may be denoting, and yet not denote anything
[/quote]
With that kept in mind, Chris’s entire argument is unraveled.
[QUOTE=Chris Langan]
every set, even the largest one, has a powerset which contains it, and that which contains it must be larger
[/quote]
This issue is semantic, it doesn’t prove anything any more than Russell’s paradox does… Well, other than the logical problem of Platonic ideals and thus the ontological argument; since if logical sets have correspondence in reality, then those sets must each contain sets of sets ad infinitum.
As for this:
[QUOTE=Chris Langan]
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 spacetime substrate as defined on material and supramaterial levels
[/quote]
Any physical evidence we find is by definition not supernatural. No entity manifest in reality is supernatural. I’d argue that it’s circular to say that because God exists, they’re inherent in reality and then it’s a fallacy of composition to say that because God exists in reality that all reality must have the property God. It’s no more useful than saying that "If rapists are real, then rape inheres in the comprehensive reality syntax, and this syntax inheres in matter. Ergo, rape inheres in all matter and indeed in its spacetime substrate as defined on material and supramaterial levels.
How useful is it to regard the universe as sentient or intelligent? I don’t like the concept of holons, but the vast majority of the universe demonstrates no evidence for sentience.
Perhaps you’d like to provide your own interpretation of his arguments to further the discussion?
:)OF COURSE HE DOES, otherwise none of us would be alive? I don’t understand how nobody knows this yet? where do they think we came from? WERE we dropped off by ALIENS??LOL? Oh I forgot the MONKEY Therory??? NOT?? Of course things have evolved but I’m not an decendant of an APE! OK! I guess it’s not for me to judge but I LOVE GOD with all my heart & soul. I talk to him daily & nightly. ONLY People who have a personal relationship with him know him. We are close to him & he performs miracles that we see all the time, if your an outsider how could you know him? SOMEDAY maybe more of you will UNDERSTAND him. Cause I know him well. It’s not a secret he’s open for all to KNOW HIM. JUST START & LIVE YOU LIFE by his word & you will have no DOUBTS!!!
There is no “Monkey Theory” that I know of, and nobody I know of claims we descended from apes, so would you mind turning off the pretty colors and telling us what you might be talking about?
This post has been graped.
In other news, someone posted this irksome tidbit on FB today … “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.” - 1 Corinthians 1:18&19
In other words, wisdom and logic are useless. We should revel in willful ignorance. Attempting to apply reason in these matters is futile. Even the best ironclad argument that religion is nonsense will not sway the faithful. The ease with which fingers can plug ears is intended by grand design. So don’t bother with all your highfalutin logic.
Well, I think we descended from apes. Not gorillas, but apes. In fact, we’re still apes.
At least Webster saw it that way, but he was using what he was taught!
The word attributed to God are the word of humans, it is a belief not a fact! I feel if one believes that and it is helping the person live a kinder better life, and not trying to make his/her beliefs the law of the land (or world) then fine. You may believe you understand what you were taught of a God but it doesn’t mean it is the truth. What you may believe is a personal relationship is just a belief and that is fine with me, although I think of it as a little child having an imaginary friend. One person’s miracle is another’s coincidence.
Quoting gamerunknown:
Apparently, you believe that Bertrand Russell “unraveled” the CTMU a hundred years before Chris Langan developed it!
You probably know that “Bert” was an atheist, and are trying very hard to emulate him, but did you know that when asked if he would die for his convictions, he replied…
Quoting Bertrand Russell:
Albert Einstein who, like “Chris” but unlike “Bert”, was able to grasp on a purely intellectual level that God exists, had this to say on the subject…
Quoting Albert Einstein:
Quoting gamerunknown:
I do, but then again, I’m a lot older than you, so there are bound to be some differences between what you and I like. For instance, you, being a young person, probably like the auto tuned “music” of young folks such as “Justin Beaver”, “Lady Goo Goo” and “Snoop Doggy Poop” while I prefer the music of artists such as “Jimi Hendrix”, “The Beatles” and “Bad Co.”.
As long as we are going to be quoting famous scientists, how about these little gems…
Quoting Stephen Hawking:
Well, the CTMU is both a logical and a mathematical theory, which also happens to be a perfectly self consistent construct. In my opinion, it’s a far more cogent argument for why the universe exists than the “tower of magic turtles” argument that is inherently implied by those holding an atheistic point of view.
Quoting Sir Francis Bacon:
To that I might add that the minds of cockroaches and maggots are also incapable of “depth in philosophy”.
Quoting gamerunknown:
Perhaps…
However, since this thread is primarily about the existence or non-existence of God while the CTMU is mainly a theory about why the universe exists and how it works, I will probably start a new thread devoted specifically to the CTMU.
Don.