My Disproof of Christianity and a coming false Logic (CTMU)

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
Zoorhess's picture
My Disproof of Christianity and a coming false Logic (CTMU)

You awesome atheists, please let me know if this is all agreeable to you! I would love anyone’s feedback actually! It is just a disproof of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) and Christianity, where the CTMU is exposed as a dangerous (new) kind of religion which calls itself a theory-of-everything super logic but is just super-twisted, half-baked super logic. The CTMU is an attempt by religion to adapt to the true coming of logic, to fight back.

The disproof of Christianity and the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), which is authored by Chris Langan:

The self-claiming but false scientist Chris Langan messed with the wrong person. I am Brandon Clifton, previously a popular blogger for the CTMU. And I finally have a disproof of Chris Langan’s theory of reality (the CTMU), which goes along with Christianity in going down humanity’s trash can of inhumane waste.

First problem with the CTMU: it claims that absolute truth is knowable by any single, individual person. That is completely false. Absolute truth cannot be known by any one person, but in extended analysis CAN be known by all people as a whole. The reason is dead obvious: everyone is different; no one has the same perspective on what reality is unless you are some copy of someone else, but even then, you would be different to the extent of your positioning in physical space-time. To note: the global grammar/global syntactic operator of the CTMU would not be a singleton but rather (according to the CTMU’s wording) a multiplex unity of global grammars that co-operate. So, the CTMU is syntactically invalid, even on its face.

Second and final problem with the CTMU: it chooses its interpretation of reality in terms of only one person, not in terms of all those that are possible (and so contains horrific assumptions on what things mean and should be like). But of course, this was always just Chris Langan’s interpretation (what he only FELT LIKE putting down on paper), sadly put. Everyone views up and down differently, but if people would just cooperate and therefore coexist, we could turn all wars upside down into people working together, regardless of everyone’s differences. Even though the CTMU is super extensive in terms of mathematical mappings, it is still totally wrong according to the real truth which is both syntactically correct (and so has form that is pluralistically unified instead of in divisional anti-unification like in the CTMU) and semantically correct (interpreted correctly via plural unity instead of interpreted incorrectly via divisional anti-unity like in the CTMU). Of course, this makes it so that the CTMU is just religion with the appearance of logic by using words and ideas that seem to originate from logic … but don’t actually. It is what it is, in other words: religion that is strengthened by not only lying about what is true about the world, but lying about what it is in identity (to clarify, it isn’t logic). The CTMU is just religion trying to adapt to the coming of true logic in humanity’s evolution. Thus, the CTMU is utterly misleading to people, especially to those who don’t know much about logic but want an understanding of it … even though they are actually misled and dragged into a situation of where they are required by the CTMU to reject truthful logic and accept what was actually just religion the whole time.

So make this known as finally disproving the CTMU. Now, after all this time of me looking into the CTMU, it is Chris Langan VS Brandon Clifton over validity. And with this, I win.

Now, on to Christianity (I hope this doesn’t get me killed someday; but I don’t really care about that considering what I might eventually accomplish with this):

Christianity = God over the world. –> Yes, not so bad at first look. But God = horrific self-entitling assumption-making dictator. And that is because all of Christianity’s morals can be questioned and disregarded through logical invalidation, obviously. Plus, the requirement of Jesus Christ (as God in human form) dying to save humanity from sin equates to God sending Himself to death in order to … have humanity instead of humanity being in the hands of evil (which doesn’t make sense except for in the sense that God wanted to buy the equivalent of Himself, thus making the cost of His self equal to His self’s death) … and to clarify, He is equivalent in religion to humanity in terms of cost since He would have to die to have humanity - if that even made any sense. (It doesn’t too: a God who wanted life would have chosen life. And God doesn’t owe evil anything special in terms of what He truly wants since everyone has freedom of choice over self-identity, so God had a choice of life or death where it wasn’t actually affecting humanity’s existence.) And as a result, religion is like this: God must die to live, falsity must be accepted to have truth, evil must win over true good. That’s sick and retarded, simply put, but has been sadly believed in for thousands of years by vast amounts of people.

…So God is a horrific dictator

…and sadly, (like I just said) major parts of humanity follow God [to be like Him], [to want what He truly wanted and wants (the death of the self)], and [to self-deny the ability to question anything and everything one desires to. And so, they, therefore, believe in … nothingness combined with hate (LOL hypocritical theists in contrast with atheists)].

Finally, it should be known that to not question the moral superiority of God, good or not, is to also not really know what God’s declared morals really mean. And thus, anti-scientific people are a-moral by definition, which is true just by looking at many keywords’ definitions in the ENGLISH DICTIONARY about it, FOR GOD’S SAKE!

Morals should be like this: generally relative in truth value. That’s because every specified moral, as opposed to all morals in conflation with each other (which yields contradiction due to difference), is dependent on situational context as for whether it applies to any certain situation. For example [feeding a dog is good] is a moral. But it isn’t always applicable and so can be invalid in certain situations. Proof: feeding a dog, too much, is bad … and feeding a dog, when it’s hungry, is good; that’s one case where such a moral is invalid in one situation but is valid as a moral in the latter case. Every moral is sensitive in situational context, whether one is willing to think about it or not. And the logical philosophy behind such thinking is my own, named [Ethical General Relativity]. It is the truest philosophical theory of ethics that there ever was. And it is the proof over religion that religion is invalid.

If people want to know it though, I hope to end Christianity someday, or at least that the essence of my kind of philosophy will eventually catch on and end it, along with every other religion. Some people might see me as Satan or as Satanic. But even though I just might be the ultimate opponent of religion, my name isn’t Satan, and I’m not Satanic. But I have the knowledge to challenge religion and to hopefully be able to eliminate it.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

arakish's picture
Just a thought. Next time,

Just a thought. Next time, you might want to summarize the article, then provide a link to it. We can get into trouble posting large amounts of text from elsewhere.

rmfr

Zoorhess's picture
Got that now, thanks.

Got that now, thanks.

Cognostic's picture
Egad! WTF is that? Okay.

Egad! WTF is that? Okay.... here we go.....

1. Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: (There is a reason no apologists are using it.) "This is, quite simply, horseshit." Jack Fraser, Masters Physics, University of Oxford (2018) .... "After finally plucking up the courage to read the CTMU, I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with reviews from people far better at physics than I variously describing it as:

Unreadable

Intentionally obfuscating

Infuriating to read, due to the way he redefines common words to his own unique meaning, and then using metaphors in this new “language” to describe physics."

....."Is it more likely that a very clever guy has deluded himself, and written a nigh-incomprehensible tome which intentionally obfuscates inconsistencies in his theory?"

?Except, there is a problem. Mathematics is independent of our universe — that is the way we have constructed it. Mathematics does not depend on our universe to be true."

..."Mathematics can describe every single possible reality. You cannot prove statements about reality from mathematics alone — that is not how any of this works." *YOU READ THE REST*

https://www.quora.com/What-do-physicists-think-of-Christopher-Langans-Co...

Nyarlathotep's picture
I am Brandon Clifton,

Egad - I am Brandon Clifton, previously a popular blogger for the CTMU.

It seems in the past you championed the idea that in Mr. Langan's CTMU: God is mathematically proven to exist. I'm presuming you no longer endorse that view.

I'm curious: How did you move from one position to the other? What happened to Mr. Langan's proof?

Zoorhess's picture
Good questions, though. Yeah,

Good questions, though. Yeah, I am against the CTMU now, after all this time working on logical research for 9 years now. I reasoned through it so much because it just seemed so true, and I love reasoning and logic of course. But I started hearing things about it from others who have had direct contact with Chris Langan that seemed so contradictory to his past writings. So I looked into it and found inconsistencies with its core structure when I thought about it according to my own reasoning. And it is just so focused on a single unified theory of reality as God Himself when you look into all the content about it, and the logic in it made no sense as a result. It really just tries to equate religion with logic. Chris Langan's proof is actually non-existent; nothing like a proof has been found either. But he relies on people thinking highly of his IQ to get them interested, I think. That's where my interest in the CTMU began, at least.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Egad - Chris Langan's proof

Egad - Chris Langan's proof is actually non-existent; nothing like a proof has been found either.

I guess what I'm trying to ask without sounding insulting is: given the this quote of yours from the present, why did you tell people in the past it was proved?

arakish's picture
I actually had to go look

I actually had to go look this up on the WWW because it sounded familiar, but I could not completely remember. I now know why...

To be wholly honest, I read this paper some time ago. Mr. Langen may claim to be smartest person in the world, but intelligent he ain't. The only "smarts" he has is a really thick Thesaurus. His CTMU is nothing more than a rehashing of William Lane Craig's plagiarized Teleological Argument. And he said he spent what 20, 25 years writing the paper? Hmm... I know PhD scientists with a much lower IQ that could write a scientific journal paper twice as long in less than half the time. And 80% of their time is actually spent gathering the data.

All Mr. Langen has done is simply take the Teleological Argument and obfuscate it by piling in a bunch of new age bullshit using hypertautology, preposterous gibberish which is incomprehensible, and actually redefines all words of the English language, and even makes up words that do not even exist. All Mr. Langen has done is dump a few Thesauri into an incomprehesible paper. I only got halfway through his inane and asinine gibberish before I took a magic marker and marked a huge "R & R" across the front page. Then placed it gently into File 13.

In my honest opinion, I do not believe Mr. Langen's IQ even breaks 100. I have seen no OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE proving he even has any intelligence beyond that of a common working man. All I have seen is articles written by bullshit artist journalists who are not out to sell the whole truth, but sensationalism.

Anyone could have written his paper by using a really think Thesaurus.

Another Crank Visits

Wise Guy Thinks He Can Prove God (this is another of my subscribes)

And if you want to read his pathetic word-salad garbage: PDF; just don't forget to use a really good vinaigrette to wash the bad taste away.

Read this forum thread: CTMU - B.S. or Brilliant? (and I am a member, just different user name)

In my honest and humble opinion, I would guarantee the IQ test Mr. Langan took was probably the test they gave 3rd graders about 50 years ago when I was in 3rd grade. Mr. Langan is nothing more than a charlatan, eccentric prankster, and a foolish liar. Let me and the team I work with lock him away in our lab and give him a Mensa Test. I seriously doubt that he would crack an 80.

rmfr

arakish's picture
Additionally, have you truly

Additionally, have you truly looked at some of his writings? I downloaded and read two of his other papers while at the two doctor visits I had today. He misspells words, makes grammatical and punctuational errors throughout his writings. Is that something you would expect from someone who has an IQ that is off the charts? Hell I'd guarantee I would struggle to get an IQ high for Mensa now days. Yet I make far fewer errors in my writings over the last four decades than he does in just ONE paper.

Smartest Man in America, MY ASS!

rmfr

Nyarlathotep's picture
Knowing someone's I.Q., is a

Knowing someone's IQ, is a great way to predict how they will do on future IQ tests; and not much else.

I've known some pretty dumb people with high IQs and a lot of really smart people with modest IQs.

arakish's picture
And here is something else

And here is something else about those IQ tests. The only indication they give is NOT how smart a person is. All they do is indicate how fast a person can learn something new and how much information they can retain. IQ scores indicate nothing else.

Even a person who is considered, using the old terminology, "mentally retarded" with an IQ of 75 could still learn rather complex ideas. It just takes them longer to learn it than someone with an IQ of 110.

As Nyarlathotep said, and I have seen such, "I've known some pretty dumb people with high IQs and a lot of really smart people with modest IQs."

rmfr

Cognostic's picture
arakish: I don't think IQ

arakish: I don't think IQ has to do with speed of learning but more learning retention. (With that I think we are talking about the same thing. Someone with a high IQ retains things faster and moves on to something new while a lower IQ does not learn or is incapable of understanding some things.)

I submit to you that no matter how smart someone is (How High Their IQ is) They do not have to be rational or logical. They can still believe in fantasies and, in fact, they are much better at inventing fantasy because of their elevated IQ.

ELIJAH4HIM's picture
My friend you make very

My friend you make very interesting human points , however if GOD is GOD then HE is not human in existence so no human mind can possibly comprehend HIM because GOD is infinite . omnipotent, omnipotence.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. Isaiah 55:8

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

No
Cognostic's picture
HOW CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT WORKS:

HOW CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT WORKS:: 1. "GOD is GOD" 2, "He is not human." 3. I am human. 4. No human mind can possibly comprehend him / God. 5. Therefore - I can not possibly KNOW, "God is God" or that "He is not human." I'm just pretending to know so I will look important and people will listen to me. And down the rabbit hole you go.

Nyarlathotep's picture
MICK - My friend you make

MICK - My friend you make very interesting human points , however if GOD is GOD then HE is not human in existence so no human mind can possibly comprehend HIM because GOD is infinite[,] omnipotent, omnipotence.

A lot of postulates are packed into that one sentence

ELIJAH4HIM's picture
My friend you make very

My friend you make very interesting human points , however if GOD is GOD then HE is not human in existence so no human mind can possibly comprehend HIM because GOD is infinite . omnipotent, omnipotence.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. Isaiah 55:8

Cognostic's picture
HOW CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT WORKS:

HOW CHRISTIAN BULLSHIT WORKS:: 1. "GOD is GOD" 2, "He is not human." 3. I am human. 4. No human mind can possibly comprehend him / God. 5. Therefore - I can not possibly KNOW, "God is God" or that "He is not human." I'm just pretending to know so I will look important and people will listen to me. And down the rabbit hole you go.

Calilasseia's picture
If no human mind can

If no human mind can comprehend this entity, as you assert, how come so many adherents of the requisite mythology are so certain that they know what this entity wants, including what we're supposed to do with our genitalia? It strikes me as being rather difficult to have it both ways.

David Killens's picture
"First problem with the CTMU:

"First problem with the CTMU: it claims that absolute truth is knowable by any single, individual person."

Dunno dude. With the internet I can find about any answer. Come on, ask me something, I have lots of good search engines. I may not remember it all, but only as long as I know where to search, then anything is knowable.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.