Redpill: Man with the highest IQ(195) believes in God

workcel wrote:My original point was that is doesn't matter if someone is 'gnostic' in anything. What matters is if they can show it. It's irrelevant otherwise. Therefore, it shouldn't be a 2d graph but a straight line between belief and non belief. Justified or otherwise.


It does matter because gnostic theists are making claims about the world we live in despite the fact they are lacking evidence. Usually they have something they think is evidence but is really bullshit. My goal is to show them that they don't. In a practical sense it matters because gnostic theists influence public policy and other things. Whereas at least agnostic theists would have much less power.

The secondary point about 'lacking a belief' I'm suspecting is a cope. You can't lack a belief in a piece of information you've been made aware of. You're on a continuum between belief and non-belief.


Lol dude, why can't you get this through your head. I actually can lack belief in a whole bunch of things, not just regarding Gods. I.e, there are probably branches of mathematics that I know nothing about. Of the Gods that I do know about, I can prove them false by showing inconsistencies in the holy books. But deists like to fight in this weird way in which they give incomplete information about a God. Therefore since they aren't clearly defining what they are talking about I can lack belief in it.

(Deist): "There is a thing that exists"
Me: What is the thing like?
(Deist): I'm unable to tell you.
Me: Then I lack belief in it.
Life is written in bone.

ThereIsNoGame wrote:It does matter because gnostic theists are making claims about the world we live in despite the fact they are lacking evidence. Usually they have something they think is evidence but is really bullshit. My goal is to show them that they don't.


That's not what we were talking about.

Lol dude, why can't you get this through your head. I actually can lack belief in a whole bunch of things, not just regarding Gods. I.e, there are probably branches of mathematics that I know nothing about. Of the Gods that I do know about, I can prove them false by showing inconsistencies in the holy books. But deists like to fight in this weird way in which they give incomplete information about a God. Therefore since they aren't clearly defining what they are talking about I can lack belief in it.

(Deist): "There is a thing that exists"
Me: What is the thing like?
(Deist): I'm unable to tell you.
Me: Then I lack belief in it.


Of course. It's called agnosticism. I don't see why you want to conflate two terms (atheism and agnosticism) unnecessarily. You're clearly not 'lacking a belief' in Mormonism are you? But you leave open the question of something else. That's what agnosticism is.

workcel wrote:
ThereIsNoGame wrote:It does matter because gnostic theists are making claims about the world we live in despite the fact they are lacking evidence. Usually they have something they think is evidence but is really bullshit. My goal is to show them that they don't.


That's not what we were talking about.

Lol dude, why can't you get this through your head. I actually can lack belief in a whole bunch of things, not just regarding Gods. I.e, there are probably branches of mathematics that I know nothing about. Of the Gods that I do know about, I can prove them false by showing inconsistencies in the holy books. But deists like to fight in this weird way in which they give incomplete information about a God. Therefore since they aren't clearly defining what they are talking about I can lack belief in it.

(Deist): "There is a thing that exists"
Me: What is the thing like?
(Deist): I'm unable to tell you.
Me: Then I lack belief in it.


Of course. It's called agnosticism. I don't see why you want to conflate two terms (atheism and agnosticism) unnecessarily. You're clearly not 'lacking a belief' in Mormonism are you? But you leave open the question of something else. That's what agnosticism is.


I'm not conflating the terms. I'm just saying that they are not mutually exclusive.

lol but at the end of the day I'm still an atheist too because I lack belief in a God. "Atheist" literally means "not theist". That's why I can be both. Even a Christian is an atheist in regards to Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, or a religion they've never heard of.

Anyway Deism has 2 major problems.
1) An unnecessary complication of God existing out of nothing. Why not just say the universe came out from nothing.
2) Per Incompleteness Theorem, God can't be both consistent and complete. It must exist in some higher order metaphysics (this goes well with point 1). So even God would be unable to answer certain questions and could not possibly be all-knowable or omnipotent. Deists never even acknowledge this major flaw.

ThereIsNoGame wrote:Anyway Deism has 2 major problems.
1) An unnecessary complication of God existing out of nothing. Why not just say the universe came out from nothing.
2) Per Incompleteness Theorem, God can't be both consistent and complete. It must exist in some higher order metaphysics (this goes well with point 1). So even God would be unable to answer certain questions and could not possibly be all-knowable or omnipotent. Deists never even acknowledge this major flaw.


Think we're gonna have to agree to disagree. BTW with regards to point one, check out William Lane Craig. Specifically the Kalam stuff. It all depends on the existence of actual infinities.

workcel wrote:
ThereIsNoGame wrote:Anyway Deism has 2 major problems.
1) An unnecessary complication of God existing out of nothing. Why not just say the universe came out from nothing.
2) Per Incompleteness Theorem, God can't be both consistent and complete. It must exist in some higher order metaphysics (this goes well with point 1). So even God would be unable to answer certain questions and could not possibly be all-knowable or omnipotent. Deists never even acknowledge this major flaw.


Think we're gonna have to agree to disagree. BTW with regards to point one, check out William Lane Craig. Specifically the Kalam stuff. It all depends on the existence of actual infinities.


I've heard William Lane Craig's arguments and have concluded he's a dumbass.

What about 2). If any theist or deist admitted that God could be either incomplete or inconsistent, they would begin to have a real argument IMO. But they refuse to budge. I am willing to entertain the idea of a God existing if he is either incomplete or inconsistent.

There is no god but Allah. Black Muhammed is his prophet.

ASDFGHJKLZ wrote:The fact that you are influenced by the "man with the highest iq" shows that you are iqcel. You instinctively believe that if somebody with status has an opinion, then that opinion must be fact. You must challenge your inherent laziness and think more independently to realize this logical mistake.

THIS. and quote he says "ALLEGORICAL TRUTH"

allegory: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegory

"a story in which the characters and events are symbols that stand for ideas about human life or for a political or historical situation"

i love lord of the rings and believe in the allegorical truth of it, in that ITS IDEAS REPRESENT IMPORTANT IDEAS IN OUR EVERYDAY LIVES.

this chris is saying the same about the idea of a creator. i think theres a reasonable chance of a creator, prolly some sort of advanced being that helped get us to where we are now. but at the same time its also reasonable to assume there is none, us being advanced is a positive feedback loop, where our advancing exponential. if we weren't so crazy advanced we wouldn't be thinking it in the first place. anthropic principle basically
Image

On one hand, our sentience is proof there is more to the world than the physical world. On the other, I have not witnessed any signs of God. I really want my skydaddy to be real, but my prayers keep going unanswered. :x

If there is a God, he hates us. Or at least he hates non male model men.
Last edited by OmegaKV on Wed May 04, 2016 6:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
[img/]http://i58.tinypic.com/5uhenn.jpg[/img]

RodgerRabbit wrote:Trying to fix yourself is literally a race against the clock. It's a catch 22. By the time you've fixed all the flaws that prevented you from slaying, you will have lost the one thing most essential to slaying in the first place -- youth.
NewGenious119 wrote:This idea that nobody owes anyone anything completely goes against the entire point of even having a society in the first place. If society doesn't owe an individual person anything, then the individual owes society nothing either, so don't be surprised when they take their frustration out on the world.

There is absolutely NO GOOD reason why, in the 21st century, every person shouldn't have their basic needs met. That means food, shelter, clothing, and transportation for all and, yes, if you are a male, sexual access to attractive females as that is considered a basic need for men as well.
Leebyunghun wrote:The number one source of strife in human existence is the inequality of looks among the male species.
germanDream wrote:a woman would fuck a cute dog or horse over an average faced man ANY day of the week. its not even close. women are repulsed by non male model men
PuaKiller wrote:Most women couldn't last a month as an incel male. They'd suicide. Prostitution would be legal worldwide and virgin shaming would cease if women were put in the shoes of an incel male for even a month. They couldn't handle it.
firehaze wrote:If a girl has never made it obvious that she likes you then you're a lot more subhuman than you think.



http://twitter.com/incelvoice

#NoHymenNoDiamond

Anti-Degeneracy crew

https://www.reddit.com/r/Truecels/

He didn't make any arguments proving God exist. Just saying evolution can work with God is completely different.

ThereIsNoGame wrote:lol at the end of the day, gnostic thiests always lose because they can't provide evidence that our universe was created by a god.

agnostic atheism > agnostic deism > gnostic atheism > gnostic deism > agnostic theism > gnostic theism


yeah but you cant provide "proof" that evolution exists either. the idea of proof can't be intrinsically quantified, it is subjective to the limited knowledge constrained to our tiny observable environment we are familiar with. at the end of the day, every fact is nothing but a theory based on more theories based on statistical data confirmed and concluded with feasible enough repetition. our interpretation of a reasonable amount of checking our theories could simple be a minuscule fraction of the whole equation. our entire scientific awareness could all be part of a large equation. how can you prove that gravity is real, when tomorrow it could cease to exist? we discount the possible, albeit infinitely unlikely chance that something statistically nonsensical could happen for no logical reason in the very next sequence. for example, the number 0.0101010101010101010101...0109
our process of trial and error could simply be the very beginning of a long sequence of predictable arrangements, that is until it isn't
evolution and science and laws of nature could all just be illusions.
welcome to the redpill

This thread has descended into a mindless rabble.

TonyB wrote:This thread has descended into a mindless rabble.


are you too low iq to comprehend?

Keseniya (1991) wrote:
Though I am generally well-read (similar to Mr Mrz), my IQ is likely not high as I have only attained a highschool education. It is just too expensive for alot of kids to enter university in Canada (sigh).

[ snip ]

In the Barber paradox (as derived from Russell's paradox), a barber shaves all those men who do not shave themselves. Does the barber shave himself? Since he does not shave himself, he can shave himself. But if he shaves himself, he cannot shave himself. This oscillating paradox arises because the barber A is both outside the set B whose elements include John, Philip, Samuel, and so on -- including the barber himself (who is paradoxically also inside the set B). This contradiction shows that humans cannot be both outside the set to which they create (Universe) and yet simultaneously be inside it (Universe as a closed system = set B).


Dafuq is this Great Wall of Academic Text? Keep this up and I will take away your highschool diploma, KS.

Child: Give us Less Text and More Pics. DO IT.
Last edited by China_Man on Thu May 05, 2016 10:11 am, edited 7 times in total.

I have the same beliefs about god as the guy with a 190 IQ :)

China_Man wrote:
Keseniya (1991) wrote:Though I am generally well-read (similar to Mr Mrz), my IQ is likely not high as I have only attained a highschool education. It is just too expensive for alot of kids to enter university in Canada (sigh).

[ snip ]

In the Barber paradox (as derived from Russell's paradox), a barber shaves all those men who do not shave themselves. Does the barber shave himself? Since he does not shave himself, he can shave himself. But if he shaves himself, he cannot shave himself. This oscillating paradox arises because the barber A is both outside the set B whose elements include John, Philip, Samuel, and so on -- including the barber himself (who is paradoxically also inside the set B). This contradiction shows that humans cannot be both outside the set to which they create (Universe) and yet simultaneously be inside it (Universe as a closed system = set B).

Dafuq is this Great Wall of Academic Text? Keep this up and I will take away your highschool diploma, KS.

Child: Give us Less Text and more Pics. DO IT.

LOL at your signature

"you get the picture", LMFAO

donsjohns wrote:
TonyB wrote:This thread has descended into a mindless rabble.


are you too low iq to comprehend?


Fine I'll bite:

donsjohns wrote: evolution and science and laws of nature could all just be illusions.


Comparing the scientific method to a lowbrow form of guess making within a matrix-esque universe is a little simplistic. Ofcourse science can only operate by the process of statistical probability in determining fact from fiction, however its 5 sigma certainty model is as close to fact as we can reasonably expect a rational process to achieve.

To say that evolution might be an illusion because of this method is idiotic, the evidence in favour of evolution by natural selection is so overwhelming and comprehensive that you would have to be very irrational to believe otherwise. The process of evolution via the mechanism described by Darwin is happening this very second and can be observed in action via the microscopic study of bacteria.

To claim that we can never know with certainty because we haven't been around to observe it is as stupid a statement as saying that a court of law can never prosecute a crime because it wasn't there to observe it.

his point is everything can be doubted though, which is true. but on the other hands it wouldnt be "reasonable doubt"

mrz wrote:There is no god but Allah. Black Muhammed is his prophet.

and pedos are the saints
__________________
Life is a whore, just pay your dues and fuck her hard

TonyB wrote:
donsjohns wrote:
are you too low iq to comprehend?


Fine I'll bite:

donsjohns wrote: evolution and science and laws of nature could all just be illusions.


Comparing the scientific method to a lowbrow form of guess making within a matrix-esque universe is a little simplistic. Ofcourse science can only operate by the process of statistical probability in determining fact from fiction, however its 5 sigma certainty model is as close to fact as we can reasonably expect a rational process to achieve.

To say that evolution might be an illusion because of this method is idiotic, the evidence in favour of evolution by natural selection is so overwhelming and comprehensive that you would have to be very irrational to believe otherwise. The process of evolution via the mechanism described by Darwin is happening this very second and can be observed in action via the microscopic study of bacteria.

To claim that we can never know with certainty because we haven't been around to observe it is as stupid a statement as saying that a court of law can never prosecute a crime because it wasn't there to observe it.

i agree wholeheartedly with you that it is completely idiotic to not trust in the most logical explanation of our existence today through evolution, as in i would place my life on evolution rather than illusion, but who is to say that god didn't create the laws of nature? i mean, the process of evolution and developing adapting traits could simply be the intended design of a functional living system that is our world. a good analogy would be Big Blue or Deep blue or whatever, the great chess computer that beat bobby fischer. the computer itself, is essentially a sentient being with only the knowledge of how to operate systematically and logistically to beat its opponent in a mathematical game like chess. the creator would be the human who made the comp, and the skills and maneuvers to win the game, would be the adapting process of species in a ever changing environment, aka evolution. fisher would be the environmental factors causing specie extinction. so one can say that yes, it can only make sense that evolution is dependent on distinct details and small factors, seemingly, almost miraculously leading to such a precise functioning masterpiece like the human, who is ultimately one of the most finely calibrated, perfectly designed species on this planet. one can equate the human, to beating bobby fisher in a game of chess. does that make sense?

legit af don

and keenya up there also had a very informative post

History's smartest men believed in God but be careful to not make the logical fallacy appeal to authority just because someone in a high position of authority or intelligence believes something doesn't make it the case. You still need to rely on Scriptures

There is no other God besides Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. Krishna is mentioned in the Koran and so is Jesus. Basically the Koran is as legit as the Vedas to me.

Internet Archivist wrote:Keseniya,

Who are You? Did you break your leg in your university gymnastics team and decided to spend a week in bed posting your philosophical mémoires to the brain-damaged incel idiots of S.H.? You're some kind of girl version of Voltaire, the 18th Century French philosopher & essayist.

Damn, no human being could understand what you just wrote below. Let alone write it. Just look at it. Seriously, you need to see a mental health specialist (psychiatrist). Whatever daddy or incest issues you suffer from does not justify freaking us out with your Great Wall of China Texts. You gave us all PTSD. Sheesh.

Keseniya (1991) wrote:
According to Wikipedia, Mr Langan's IQ is said to be between 195 and 210. We must keep in mind, though, that an IQ test measures whatever an IQ test measures and calls it a proxy for intelligence. There are at least 3 kinds of intelligence in cognition, emotion, and behaviour. In my opinion standardised IQ tests assess no more than 20% of a person's overall intelligence which includes demonstrated emotional maturity (e.g. in control of one's emotions) and rational/optimised behaviour as proven in one's life choices and lifestyle -- e.g. clean home and self, healthy, vegan, skinny, and no substance dependency (including prescription meds), debts, messy relationships, cuckoldry, divorce, or ex-wife payments. IQ tests are flawed because practice in sit-down tests can improve results, test questions which show a gender difference are removed from the tests and overall results are normalised (i.e. statistically unadjusted (true) test results show that women are less intelligent than men), and there has been an inflation in test scores since the 1930s known as the Flynn effect. The final nail in the pine coffin is the dramatic differences in average IQ scores around the world. In Equatorial Guinea the average IQ is measured to be as low as 59. This is the typical intelligence of an adult with Down Syndrome in the West. With the former we can carry on a normal conversation just as with other adults -- with the latter we cannot (obviously). This is "The Emperor's New Clothes" effect in academics who are blindly committed to a blinkered view of IQ tests.

In the quote above, Langan seems to make a logical fallacy in his belief that God created the Universe and that humans were participants in its creation. In logic: A must be outside the set B in order to perform upon the elements of B. A human cannot be both outside the Universe and take part in creating it -- and reside inside it as a closed system. A ruler cannot be used to measure itself -- it requires another ruler to validate its accuracy in the scale. In the Barber paradox (as derived from Russell's paradox), a barber shaves all those men who do not shave themselves. Does the barber shave himself? Since he does not shave himself, he can shave himself. But if he shaves himself, he cannot shave himself. This oscillating paradox arises because the barber A is both outside the set B whose elements include John, Philip, Samuel, and so on -- including the barber himself (who is paradoxically also inside the set B). This contradiction shows that humans cannot be both outside the set to which they create (Universe) and yet simultaneously be inside it (Universe as a closed system = set B).

Langan's view appears to be simply a rehash of Stephen Jay Gould’s famous proclamation of nonoverlapping magisteria where religion and science are claimed to be both true accounts of reality where they complement each other and co-exist in harmony. This view has been referred to by critics as "God of the Gaps" where science chips away a little at a time upon the supernatural account of the world where religion can still purportedly explain just the parts which science has not yet been able to do. This is a politically correct stratagem and a cowardly retreat of an academic or a scientist who fears alienating himself from his audience with hard truths. Richard Dawkins said it. We need to just come to grips with reality no matter how bad it makes us feel about suffering, injustice, and our fear of death. Life has no spiritual meaning. We must find our own purpose and happiness in it.

Though I am generally well-read (similar to Mr Mrz), my IQ is likely not high as I have only attained a highschool education. It is just too expensive for alot of kids to enter university in Canada (sigh). I would estimate mine to be in the range of 105 to 115. Yet I could discern the seeming flaw in logic in the above quote of Langan. The best thing about philosophy, logic, and math is that no matter who we are -- even if we are impoverished ethnik subhumanity (I included) -- if we understand the underlying assumptions, premises, and structure of a declarative statement or a logical argument, our reasoned conclusions stand as unassailable and no one can take that away from us. Admittedly there is more to this as axiomatic truths are defined within their own closed system (cf. a ruler can measure other rulers but it cannot measure itself), and there is a contradiction between having a knowledge system which is logically consistent versus being complete in all its details as shown in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. If a logic system is internally consistent, then it cannot explain itself as it needs an external frame of reference (e.g. we need another ruler to measure the accuracy of the ruler, and we need to stand outside the Universe in order to observe and understand the Universe). If the system is complete in details, it cannot be consistent because it invokes a contradictory paradox (e.g. the barber cannot both be outside the set B and inside the set B).

There is a similar situation in empirical research between conceptual validity versus statistical reliability. We can strive toward accuracy in one area only at the expense of the other area. As an analogy we obtain greater reliability (accuracy) if we throw darts at a larger board (because it is easier to hit a large bulls-eye center) -- but the overly large board makes the game too easy and not really valid as a game of skill. For research questions we can improve reliability if we focus our operationalised concepts (known as constructs). But if we overly narrowly define them, then they become so restricted in meaning that they have little practical validity. If we broaden the constructs, they have greater meaning but measuring them becomes too difficult in the real world. This tension is illustrated between the nomothetic approach of the natural sciences which is based upon deductive reasoning versus the ideographic approach of the social sciences which is based upon inductive reasoning in field research. We can hence have hypotheses or theories and test them out in the real world (deductive method) or do fieldwork and undertake detective work to find the underlying patterns and associations and let them reveal to us the resolved conclusions (inductive method).

Keseniya Sesarevna


Addendum:



Hello. In my opinion, the above is not really a problem specific to Deism. According to the Big Bang theory the Universe existed as a Singularity with no space or time but with infinite heat and density prior to the Big Bang. By definition this is metaphysics and not science as there are no data for analysis in a condition when there is no time or space -- or 'existence' as we know it. According to Occam's razor "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected". The problem with the Big Bang theory is that it has a missing first cause or 'prime mover'. An ideal theory would make the fewest assumption which need to be validated -- but not made any simpler which would result in a missing element. Whilst the Deist view makes the assumption of a prime mover (God), the cosmological account fails to explain how the Universe came to being. It just came from nothing -- like the Goddess Athena which sprang forth from the forehead of the God Zeus.

Both the Deist view and the cosmological account are beset with the same problem of infinite regress to the past. If God created the world, who created God? If the Universe came from the Singularity, which came before it? To say that the Singularity existed for eternity or none at all (since time did not exist before the Big Bang) is another kind of religion known to physicists. A reasoned person would conclude that Deism and the Singularity explanation on the origin of the Universe are equally valid and equally unsatisfactory as neither can logically solve the problem of infinite regress (into the past). There are also other issues such as the intelligence level of the human brain (since our minds are like a filter which 'resolves' reality like a prospector panning for gold) and because there may be some aspects of reality which are mysterious and beyond any rational comprehension (even by God).

Keseniya Sesarevna


China Man, Keseniya, Internet Archivist, and Maija are all the same faggot. Case closed.
PreviousNext

Topic Tags

Return to IQ Tests

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest