Smartest man proves God to be real

J

J.P.

Registered Senior Member
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

(may take a while to load)


From the November 2001 issue of Popular Science: "He's scored as high as 195 on IQ tests, a result so rare that experts estimate that fewer than 1 in a billion people can achieve it. A score of 100 is considered average and most university graduates come in at about 120."

Robert Seitz, a physicist and former NASA executive, is familiar with Langan's work but admits that he "doesn't fully understand Langan's theory." Seitz does say, however, that Langan is "perhaps the smartest individual" he's ever met.


"It’s a mathematical, philosophical manuscript with a radical view of the universe, a theory of everything. He proposes that all things, including the existence of God, the soul and the afterlife, can be proven using mathematics."

(from interview)

Chris Langan:
You have to prove that the universe is a self-referential system. Then you have to examine the attributes of this system, analyze the system to determine how it behaves. It turns out that in certain ways it behaves mentally like a mind. The natural question to ask then is: whose mind are we talking about? The answer to that question is the mind of God.

Chris Langan:
I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.
 
Last edited:
J.P.

who is arguably the smartest individual in the world
Click to expand...
Or is just good at IQ tests. But there doesn’t seem to be anything about his life that demonstrates he is smarter than anyone else. He hasn’t done anything.

And his bizarre papers on the theory of everything appear to show that he shares the same baseless fantasies as other theists. I don’t see the scientific community rushing to embrace his theories that weren’t even his originally. And isn’t he still working as a bouncer in a nightclub and he is in his 50s. Einstein formed his earth shattering theories when he was 24. Langan is still desperately trying to find something equally powerful that makes sense and he hasn’t made it yet. He should perhaps stick to what he does best - solving omni puzzles

Needless to say he most certainly has not proved that a god exists.
 
Cris,

The only thing I can suggest for any of the critics is to first read it, understand it second (or at least attempt to), and then engage in discussion. Nothing is more inconvenient than someone squabbling about it or anything in particular without actually having done the footwork and background checking.
 
From inspection, although he does a very good job explaining the terms, I think I would have to know some quantum physics and alot of computer science linguistic type stuft to have a good understanding.
 
Interesting Read

I don't think this fellows choice of jobs (bouncer) is necessarily
a disqualifier for writing theories that rely on math, logic, and
theory.


Anyyyyhow, I looked at the article. There were alot of cool ideas
discussed. I did pick up on his emotional standpoint
towards 'believing' in 'God' at a couple of points.


The article seems to argue the following:

1) Science has failed to definitively show how the univers works.
2) We are made up of material in the universe.

3) We are self contained.
4) We evolve.
5) The specific materials we are mode from form a program which consequently allows us to achieve conciousness.
6) This program has syntax, language, operators, and functions.

7) The universe is self contained (much like a person).
8) The universe 'evolves'.
9) The universe itself is a quantum program that has syntax, language, operators, and functions (much like a person).
10) THEREFORE, the universe must be concious.
11) THEREFORE, the universe is God.

Which makes 'sense' because man was made in 'God'-s image
and therefore man is a reflection (mirror 'image'?) of reality/the universe ('God').


Anyhow, the article makes alot of fun points but does not prove
that 'God' exists. Just a random thought. If our 'bubble' of reality
were to pop, then 'God' would cease to exist; therefore, perhaps
a more valid question is where the heck did that 'bubble' come
from?
 
1) Science has failed to definitively show how the univers works.

False. Science has SO FAR failed to make more tha nan approximation of how the universe works. There is nothing to indicate that it is definite.

2) We are made up of material in the universe.

Well, unless you believe we have an immaterial soul, yes.

3) We are self contained.

What does that mean?

4) We evolve.

Presumably ,yes.

5) The specific materials we are mode from form a program which consequently allows us to achieve conciousness.

That is one theory of how consciousness functions, yes.

6) This program has syntax, language, operators, and functions.

Unfounded assumptions. In fact, this description fits a program for a binary computer. Your brain is not a binary computer, and we have no indication that it functions like one.

7) The universe is self contained (much like a person).

Since, per definition, "the universe" is all that exists, it is obviously self-contained. Very much UNLIKE a person, as a person interacts with its surroundings and depends on them.

8) The universe 'evolves'.

But not in the way a living thing does.

9) The universe itself is a quantum program that has syntax, language, operators, and functions (much like a person).

False, or at least, a far-fetched interpretation.

10) THEREFORE, the universe must be concious.

False. Even accepting #9, this conclusion requires the premise that all programs with syntax, language, operators, and functions are conscious. This premise is obviously false, thus invalidating the conclusion.

11) THEREFORE, the universe is God.

And, with the fall of #10, this falls too.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: I am less than impressed.

Hans
 
Smartest man proves God to be real

The smartest man in the world hasn't proved God to be real at all. What he has done is provided another theory.

What I am impressed with however is that the smartest man in the world believes the existence of God is real. All those people who do not believe in the possibility that a God exists must realise that they aren't very smart after all.
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans

Hans, yes the fallacies are undeniably there but thanks for
going through each one in detail :). Definately not a proof for
'God'; however, I do recommend reading the article as there
is just alot of cool stuff in it (a moderate amount of logically valid
and very cool ideas).

Vienna Snuasages. Interesting point. Why the heck would
the smartest person on earth believe in 'God' after all? I am
guessing that even this great intellect can't escape the fact that
he has human needs and emotions.
 
Originally posted by Vienna
What I am impressed with however is that the smartest man in the world believes the existence of God is real. All those people who do not believe in the possibility that a God exists must realise that they aren't very smart after all.
Click to expand...

"belief" either way is completely unwarrented and indicative of an emotional requisite by that POV's mental structure to assume one way or the other in order to validate whatever they need to validate to satiate that emotional requisite.

for instance our new friend J.P. seems to have an emotional requisite to intellectually snuggle with a bar dude who claims to be the smartest joe alive. oh how many reasons there could be for that.

further though we can tell that J.P. needs to believe in the idea of god for some reason. OH how many reasons there could be for THAT.

shall we theorize that he's gotten caught up in the causality thing? I mean something had to precede something and on and on and simply came to the conclusion that something had to have started it all, so he placed a mental stake in the sand, called that stake god and built the rest of his perspective on reality based on this assumption without realizing that it was an assumption?

maybe it was a relative or friend or just the way he was raised? maybe all of the people in his life that he truly loved and respected have ALWAYS told him about god and god's plan.. so while he tries to question it, he still cannot help but draw a conclusion relating to god because his love cannot be wrong. this love imprinted the notion of the existence god upon the foundations of his psyche, leading him to find a myriad of creative means by which to justify this structure as having a basis in physical reality. after all, in HIS reality, it HAS a basis (though that's of course not necessarily correlated with physical reality at all, merely one's impression of it).

i'm sure he means well and thinks that he's onto something...

of course we'll never know.

i might ask:

"why is the question of god pertinent?"

we can see the big bangy kind of thing as first..

why isn't that cause enough?

eh I'll drop it for now.
 
Last edited:
What I am impressed with however is that the smartest man in the world believes the existence of God is real. All those people who do not believe in the possibility that a God exists must realise that they aren't very smart after all.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing a high IQ with the ability of being smart. He has done nothing to indicate that he can apply his IQ to anything that could be called smart.

Of course there are plenty of statistics that show a marked negative correlation between intelligence and religion.

http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html
 
Originally posted by J.P.
Here is a paper written by Chris Langan, who is arguably the smartest individual in the world, in which he claims to have proof for the existence of God and souls:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

(may take a while to load)

From the November 2001 issue of Popular Science: "He's scored as high as 195 on IQ tests, a result so rare that experts estimate that fewer than 1 in a billion people can achieve it. A score off 100 is considered average and most university graduates come in at about 120."
Click to expand...

Originally posted by Cris
I think you are confusing a high IQ with the ability of being smart. He has done nothing to indicate that he can apply his IQ to anything that could be called smart.
Click to expand...

Yeah OK Cris - anyone with an IQ of 195 MUST be a dumbass....LOL :D
 
Vienna,

Yeah OK Cris - anyone with an IQ of 195 MUST be a dumbass
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that, just that it doesn’t follow that someone with a high IQ will be smart, in the same way that someone with a lower IQ will necessarily be dumb. For example I think it takes someone pretty smart to rise to be the president of the USA and arguably the most powerful man in the world, yet GW Bush has only slightly above average IQ.

I’m considering ‘smart’ here to mean a demonstrable use of whatever intelligence they might have. Here we see that GW has probably stretched himself to the limit whereas it is very unclear that Langan has used his high IQ, i.e. he has not demonstrated ‘smartness’.

So as Wes points out Langan might simply be basing his assertion for God on emotional desires rather than any latent and undemonstrated higher intelligence.

The danger is that becuase someone has a high IQ that anything they say will reflect high intelligence. This doesn't necessarily follow.
 
Of course, being intelligent has absolutely nothing to do with being correct about any particular thing.

Langan's theory meets a fatal flaw in Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. If the Universe/God is a formally complex system then it is, by Godel's proof, incomplete.

Additionally, if Langan has indeed come up with a 'Theory of Everything' I would be interested to know how he has reconciled QED with Gravity.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Raithere


Additionally, if Langan has indeed come up with a 'Theory of Everything' I would be interested to know how he has reconciled QED with Gravity.

~Raithere
Click to expand...

Duh!! God did it.

All those people who do not believe in the possibility that a God exists must realise that they aren't very smart after all.
Click to expand...

You know I agree somewhat. Many people who argue against god forget that the chances of an all omnipotent being existing are just as solid as the opposite of that. We nearly do not know enough to come to valid conclusion to support any side of the argument.

Those who say that god is nothing but unfounded faith forget that not believing in god, totally denying his/her existence is also unfounded faith.
 
Originally posted by sargentlard
Duh!! God did it.
Click to expand...
No sgt. I'm referring to this:

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

'God did it.' Does not suffice.

Those who say that god is nothing but unfounded faith forget that not believing in god, totally denying his/her existence is also unfounded faith.
Click to expand...
Of course, not believing in god and believing god does not exist are not the same thing. Disbelief requires no faith.

~Raithere
 
Re: MRC_Hans

Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
Hans, yes the fallacies are undeniably there but thanks for
going through each one in detail :). Definately not a proof for
'God'; however, I do recommend reading the article as there
is just alot of cool stuff in it (a moderate amount of logically valid
and very cool ideas).

Vienna Snuasages. Interesting point. Why the heck would
the smartest person on earth believe in 'God' after all? I am
guessing that even this great intellect can't escape the fact that
he has human needs and emotions.
Click to expand...
So, how great is that intellect? He has presented a chain of arguments, and I can pick them apart. Presuming that chain of arguments is his best effort in that direction, the obvious conclusion is that in this field I'm at least as smart as he is (and so are the others here who also saw the fallacies).

SO why should we find his opinion more interesting than that of the next guy?

Hans
 
we should take him seriously because he has a really high IQ!

except who made up the IQ test, his little brother?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top