Civilization as we know it is on the verge of collapse - even NASA says it won't last more than a couple more decades

don't you have a MENSA larp to attend?

don't waste time here, there are dragons to be slayed through Superior Intellect

>not a single criticism of what he said

you're all just insecure fuckboy memers

problems aren't solved with the same thinking that creates them, so if you only look to those with
>high IQ
for your answers, you've already lost the way

things worked a lot more smoothly before dick measuring contests ruled the land

Well d'uh we were created by God - an omnipotent being beyond space and time that exists in eternity.

God also took human flesh and explained our purpose and where are we going and gave us instructions.

Memes the post.

he said it himself

someone 'smarter' then himself doesn't necessarily have an education, or IQ, there is nothing to argue.

ITT: brainlets in denial

Langan never claimed there's a supernatural God. He claims that God is merely the self-processing and self-organizing language which gives rise to this universe. He's an advocate of computational models of physics.

In order to explain his theory to the Layman, he used this citation (John 1:1): "At first there was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God".

Btw, the term "logos" was more appropriate to describe what was meant by "word" here at that time, when John wrote this. Logos is basically logic. So both Langan, and the Bible suggest that God is actually logos - or logic/reasoning.

No u are the monkey.

Ooh ooh aah aah

Fuck you

>logos (n.) 1580s, Logos, "the divine Word, second person of the Christian Trinity," from Greek logos "word, speech, discourse," also "reason," from PIE root *leg- (1) "to collect" (with derivatives meaning "to speak," on notion of "to pick out words;" see lecture (n.)); used by Neo-Platonists in various metaphysical and theological senses and picked up by New Testament writers.

>logic (n.)
>mid-14c., "branch of philosophy that treats of forms of thinking," from Old French logique (13c.), from Latin (ars) logica, from Greek logike (techne) "reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning," from logos "reason, idea, word" (see logos). Meaning "logical argumentation" is from c. 1600.
>Other English formations from logos include logolatry "worship of words, unreasonable regard for words or verbal truth" (1810 in Coleridge); logomania (1870); logophobia (1923).

Okay I don't wanna be derogatory or detract from your (relatively valid) point, but please don't confuse etymology with "basically meaning". You can't say that because a word is similar in its current use and pronounciation, it is "the same" word.

The thoughts behind "logos" in the ancient greek sense, are NOT the same as the associations most people get from "logic" or indeed the previous use of "logos" in English.

>TL;DR I do agree with the thought that the self organizing framework permitting DNA and complex organic structures, all the way up to consciousness, language and reason, are all symptoms of a structure we could call "god", in the sense Langan describes.

Why are you arguing that a 2000+ year old text is using a 1580s definition? This is some new level of retardation.

Also, Langan is trying to tell us that there's no supernatural God. If anything, his views on God resemble those that Einstein held.

Oh god, this is the 1580's use of said text's words. I show that the word logos has been used in english before, but that word is not the same as the ancient greek one.

Come on, this is english etymology, not ancient greek etymology.

I'm talking about the Greek logos here, not the English one.

What a surprise.
>^^^ this is sarcasm ^^^

As mentioned in >don't confuse etymology with "basically meaning"

referring to
>The thoughts behind "logos" in the ancient greek sense, are NOT the same as the associations most people get from "logic" or indeed the previous use of "logos" in English.

Concluding that
>unless you study ancient greek, your associations with a word will not be ancient greek
>they will be adaptations

Arguing that
>the vast majority of people DON'T speak ancient greek, therefore do NOT understand "The Word" and "Logos" in the same sense as intended by writers and ancient Hellenics.

Finally
>what you're "talking about" is irrelevant to the logical point that due to the dynamic nature of language, what you "think" when you hear or read "logos" is almost impossible to match to the ancient meaning or "thought" behind the same word.

So don't confuse knowledge with understanding.

Ever studied ancient Greek philosophy, mate? Because the first established laws of logic, and the term logos come from there. Looking up definitions online doesn't replace studying the subject.

"Supernatural" is an oxymoron... If there were indeed "magical skyfriends" that could shuffle the principles of physics around at will in order to achieve "miracles", that would by definition be natural.

>The views of Einstein on God and divinity
>>(and the cosmic religious feeling)
Is a debated topic, and not something I would ever fling into a debate about somebody other than Albert Einstein. The way I personally have read his opinions on it, and processing with my limited understanding of 20th century German religious culture, it appears that yes, they might have some of the same views.
>read "Quantum Questions" if you wanna see his (A.E.) actual essays on the topic.

But what really gets my goat is the need to nitpick whether or not my statement is "Pro skyfriend" or not. I used nearly word for word the same terms Langan uses in the linked interview. Still you contradict in the most general ways possible. As someone who claims that being specific in language is
>some new level of retardation
I find your statement blisteringly ignorant. Please.

This is sophism, not philosophy. Read Erasmus Montanus and call me in the morning.

gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5749/pg5749.html
In case you're lazier than me.

>logos is sophism

Next on CNN: white is black and black is white

Hwell.
>[...]the first established laws of logic, and the term logos come from [ancient Greek philosophy]
>[therefore] invoking the term in the right context invokes ancient Greek philosophy and legitimizes my claim regardless of language

No, ^^^this^^^ is sophism.

If you're invoking logos in the right context while making a logical argument, it kind of does legitimize a claim.

The only claim is that was made is that:
>In order to explain his theory to the Layman, he used this citation (John 1:1): "At first there was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God".

This (the fact that he made this analogy) is true, because this citation can be found here, in his interview:
superscholar.org/interviews/christopher-michael-langan/

I'm not making claims about the legitimacy of his theories, but rather about the analogies he made.

>John 1:1

Let's review the level of abstraction first:
>1
So he's said it in English
>2
in a stated simplification
>3
in order to use a commonly known analogy from a common tex
>4
so the layman will understand.

And yet I gathered from your claim that this four level wedding cake of (reasonably sound and acceptably correct) logic, that you claim we can

>5
jump into the greek/arameic translations and
>6
find the "right word" in the respective language to
>7
equate the term "logic" to relate to abovementioned level 3.

The notion that we can jump between cause and effect, between process and product like this, without losing nearly every little bit of sense in the process, is sophism.

I can't tell if you're trolling at this point.

I said that this quote from John, given its place and historical context, can be interpreted as claiming that God is logic. At that time (of the New Testament), the Jewish scholars and theologians used the term in this context.

I can't argue with someone who has done no research on the topic, and who pulls out irrelevant definitions from a web dictionary. In fact, I find this arguing to be pointless and unproductive. You can engage in mental masturbation over the definition if you want, it still won't change it.

And if you don't trust me, just do some research into the meaning of John 1:1 given the historical context. I can't argue if you haven't done the research needed.

I concede the point.

I don't know enough about the interpretations of the arameic, hebrew and greek scholars or their respective languages to refute your claim.

I disagree that etymology is irrelevant when discussing how current words relate to past words relate to past languages, interpreted through current language.

>in the long though, I don't really think we disagree that much on the meaning of genesis. or Johns take on it.

I also appreciate the rephrasing "can be interpreted as claiming that God is logic", and agree with it. I just have a problem with blatantly claiming that literal translations word for word can be used to find causal links.

Uhhh...

>I just have a problem with blatantly claiming that literal translations word for word can be used to find causal links.

What causal links? I claimed no causal links. Even more, I'm not even defending Langan's theory. All I'm claiming is that Langan used this quote from John to describe his theory to the Layperson in an interview:
superscholar.org/interviews/christopher-michael-langan/

>> Ken Wilber's hierarchical definition of Science is pure genius. Halfway through Quantum Questions right now, side-tracked with Kuhn currently.

>civilization as we know it is on the verge of collapse
youtu.be/oIdPPVkkHYs

Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives
And I decline
It's the end of the world as we know it
And I feel fine.

says very little that is interesting. disappointing.

People have been saying civilization is about to collapse for as long as there has been civilization

Let's take a few seconds to look at all Langan's contributions to science.
hmmmmm....

Alright well maybe mathematics.
uhhh....

Okay well he has probably invented something, right?

Guess not. Ah, but he did write a convoluted philosophical theory that is based on absolutely nothing but his opinions.

/pol/ is Christian this guy isn't

Anything over 120 is imprecise

What is the basic premise?

> /pol/ is christian
lmao

It's what happens when everyone sucks your dick constantly for scoring well on an IQ test. Dude sounds like a know-it-all.

DUDE SENSATIONALIST HEADLINES DESIGNED TO SHOCK AND SCARE PEOPLE AND GET VIEWS LMAO