/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1675038]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Langan

>Christopher Michael Langan (born c. 1952) is an American autodidact whose IQ was reported by 20/20 and other media sources to have been measured at between 195 and 210.[1] Billed by some media sources as "the smartest man in America",[2]

>In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed that "you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."[6]

How come the smartest man in the world thinks he can prove the existence of God with math?

[Anonymous No.1675045]

>"the smartest man in America"
>the smartest man in the world

I see what you did there. Double troll. Congrats.

[Anonymous No.1675046]

>>1675038

Godel thought the same

[Anonymous No.1675051]

>"you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."
It's not about what you claim, it's about what you can prove.

[Anonymous No.1675055]

>>1675045
The man is between 195-210.
Lower limit: 195 @ sd15
Percentile: 99.9999999880%
Rarity: 8,299,126,114

No troll.

[Anonymous No.1675056]

People with high IQs are just as likely to be nuts as anyone else.

[Anonymous No.1675060]

It also points out that except for an appearance on 1 vs. 100, he's essentially a total failure at everything in life. So... once again we see that IQ smart does not equal real smart.

[Anonymous No.1675071]

i think that was the guy whose dad was abusive so he trained for a while and then at age 15 beat the shit out of his dad and kicked him out of the house like a madcunt. pretty cool guy imo.

[Anonymous No.1675074]

>>1675056
>>1675060
Atheists in denial detected.

Seriously, you can still believe in a Deity while still being a man of science. You just have to keep those two far away from each other, so they don't mix.

[Anonymous No.1675075]

>>1675060
Then again, we come to the ever ongoing question of what defines a person as "smart"?

[Anonymous No.1675086]

Because no matter your intelligence, you can still be a waste of matter and energy if you fail to apply that intellect in a constructive way.

[Anonymous No.1675097]

>>1675046

As did cantor

[Anonymous No.1675098]

this is what happens when people with a brain are reiligous.

They know what to say so it atleast looks scientific while still being plain religious bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1675099]

Well, my father has an IQ of 176 and he's still a really sad case of blind religious belief.

High IQ doesn't prevent you from thinking and doing stupid things people, nothing's new.

[Anonymous No.1675110]

IQ doesn't mean shit at very high or very low ranges, or for comparing individuals. Useful for populations, yes. The idea that a "195" is smarter than a "175" because they scored higher on an arbitrary test is laughable. Lots of schizophrenics have extremely high IQs.

[Anonymous No.1675128]

how did I let this shitstorm pass by me a little while ago?

fucking bump!

[Anonymous No.1675135]

>>1675110
>IQ doesn't mean shit at very high or very low ranges
lolwat.jpg
>or for comparing individuals.
lolwat.jpg
>Useful for populations, yes.
True.
>The idea that a "195" is smarter than a "175" because they scored higher on an arbitrary test is laughable.
lolwat.jpg
>Lots of schizophrenics have extremely high IQs.
Doesn't affect the argument.

[Anonymous No.1675140]

>>1675135
Different anon here, that last line should be discussed further.

Schizos can have really high IQs, like this guy.

Schizos also believe in illogical bullshit, like this guy.

[Liberty !primeMEbkw No.1675152]

i would love to see the mathematic formula thats proves god exists.

[Anonymous No.1675179]

>>1675140
That it is bullshit is your opinion.

[Anonymous No.1675181]

>>1675152
Seconded. Making claims != showing proofs.

For that matter, he might be trying to go overtroll.

[Anonymous No.1675188]

I watched some interview with him on youtube.

I saw nothing extraordinary, and couldn't get over the feeling that he was just faking it.

[Anonymous No.1675194]

>>1675140
>Schizos also believe in illogical bullshit, like this guy.
>implying that what is logically proven is illogical

[Anonymous No.1675203]

>>1675194

What is claimed to be logically proven, needs to be logically proven.

If you have no proofs, you're a lying piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.1675210]

>>1675194
>trolling troll troll tro trolltroll troll tro trollol

[Anonymous No.1675211]

>>1675203
some things are true and cannot be logically proven.

[Anonymous No.1675213]

>>1675135
>Use lolwat.jpg as a counter argument.
>Oblivious to the fact of how stupid he looks.

lolwat.

[Anonymous No.1675214]

>>1675211

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.1675224]

>>1675179
If you're being that pedantic, then you're correct. There is no way to absolutely show that "the world is ending," "the government is out to kill me," "I was abducted by aliens," or "god exists because I say so" are anything more than beliefs.

I think they're crazy though, for believing in something in a complete absence of evidence.

[Anonymous No.1675235]

I'm sorry OP but your question is somewhat of a logical fallacy, because being the smartest individual does not necessarily mean you are right about everything.

[Anonymous No.1675241]

>>1675224
Depends on what you consider to be "crazy."

Most people believe something that doesn't have any logical basis.

[Anonymous No.1675249]

>>1675213
You hypocrite.
Also,
>Anonymous board

[Anonymous No.1675251]

well if existence of god could be proven it would be through pure mathemathics. math has the uncanny ability to predict reality, see pretty much every advancement in physics and chemistry since Newton.

[Anonymous No.1675254]

new to topic here:
While I would like to see this "God-Math", I highly doubt that such math exists. I myself am an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. While I am as skeptical as most anons, I take issue with a trend I've noticed on /sci for a while now. According to most here, it would seem that one cannot both be intelligent AND believe in a creator. I would think that most reasonably intelligent people would understand that our perception and understanding of our universe/existance is extremely limited, and would at least be open to the possibility of a god-type being's existance. But no, it seems that to most of you Atheist = "smart". Many men of science, with far greater intellect and reasoning than you cretins have also been men of god. Just because I may disagree with them, about something which neither of us may prove either way, does not make them imbeciles.

[Anonymous No.1675255]

>>1675241
Do you believe in a mythical ideology based off of greco-roman ideal for an obedient populace, or do you try to understand what Jesus was trying to express?

[Anonymous No.1675259]

>>1675249
>implying I can't tell samefag and you can't look stupid on 4chan.

It's quite rudimentary science boy!

[Anonymous No.1675265]

>>1675255
>Do you believe in a mythical ideology based off of greco-roman ideal for an obedient populace,
no
>or do you try to understand what Jesus was trying to express?
Not lately, but I understand all of it

[Anonymous No.1675275]

>>1675259
Yes, but again:
>Anonymous board

[Anonymous No.1675281]

>>1675254
>appealing to authority

cool argument bro

[Anonymous No.1675296]

>>1675265
>but I understand all of it

Fine. Explain it.

[Anonymous No.1675299]

>>1675296
Sure, no problem... (lol)

Lesson 1.)
If there were an absolute moral truth, how would you know it to be true?

[Anonymous No.1675310]

>>1675299
observation.

[Anonymous No.1675314]

>>1675281
>appeal to ethos
chill meme yo

how bout this one? less qq more pew pew!
go ahead take a risk every once in a while and try to be held accountable for more than one sentence or post.

[Anonymous No.1675348]

>>1675310
WRONG

[Anonymous No.1675373]

>>1675348
anything absolute is subject to empirical observation.

That be science yo, we find pervasive paradigms and predict them shits.

word 2 yer instructors

[Anonymous No.1675375]

>>1675348
How? I never described what I was observing.

[Anonymous No.1675378]

>>1675038
As a hardcore atheist, I kind of agree with him to an extent. If you knew where to start, you can use mathematics to come up with a final conclusion to whether God/souls/afterlives exist, into an equation even.

[Anonymous No.1675381]

>>1675378

You can win a game of chess in 3 moves.

[Anonymous No.1675383]

Didn't Michio Kaku say something similar?

[Anonymous No.1675389]

>>1675373
What basis would there be for establishing any real morality? No ought from is, right?

[Anonymous No.1675392]

>>1675383
>Michio Kaku

[Anonymous No.1675396]

>>1675389
Re state your argument, please. It failed to be comprehensible.

[Anonymous No.1675400]

Can anyone actually cite the god formula? This is some monumental trolling on a massive scale.

[Anonymous No.1675412]

>>1675396
How do you know what is right? What is it based on?

Ought from is is a phrase used to describe the belief that it is impossible to derive morality from facts.

[Anonymous No.1675415]

>>1675400

[Anonymous No.1675419]

>>1675415
I lol'd

[Anonymous No.1675438]

>>1675415
oh you

[Anonymous No.1675459]

>>1675415
FUCKER. YOU BROKE MY CALCULATOR WITH THAT SHIT.

[Anonymous No.1675477]

>How come the smartest man in the world thinks he can prove the existence of God with math?

Appeal to "authority", lets see the actual proof

[Anonymous No.1675485]

>>1675038
looked him up and hes an intelligent design advocate apparently paid by the discovery institute

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211052

He also had an interview where he advocated eugenics via evolution so he's obviously got an agenda.

[Anonymous No.1675486]

>>1675415
>>1675419
>>1675438
>>1675459
I'm higher than all of you cause you all suck at meth.
There is an Imaginary solution:
i² = -1

[Anonymous No.1675493]

if he's so smart, why doesn't he have any kind of degree?

[Anonymous No.1675503]

http://www.ctmu.org/

I still think FSM is more logical.

[Anonymous No.1675508]

>>1675254
>you cretins
>I myself am an agnostic, leaning towards atheism.
Oh sweet irony!
>According to most here, it would seem that one cannot both be intelligent AND believe in a creator.
You can be intelligent and believe in a creator.
You can even be rational and believe in a creator, but only if you're dishonest.
>I would think that most reasonably intelligent people would understand that our perception and understanding of our universe/existance is extremely limited, and would at least be open to the possibility of a god-type being's existance.
Being an atheist has no bearing on being open to any hypothetical scenario. Quit trying to view atheism through dogma goggles.
>But no, it seems that to most of you Atheist = "smart".
It doesn't equal smart, it's just that smart people are most likely to reach that conclusion.
>Many men of science, with far greater intellect and reasoning than you cretins have also been men of god.
Seeing as there is no actual universally reliable test that would let you compare intellects...
>Just because I may disagree with them, about something which neither of us may prove either way, does not make them imbeciles.
Of course that believing in a zombie that is his own father and who had to circumvent his own rules to get to save people from the fate he himself had created for them make you an imbecile - that or an extremely dishonest, or a delusional person.
Or perhaps do you think that people who believe lightnings are cast by Zeus should not be considered even a bit silly?

[Anonymous No.1675576]

>>1675038
Cognitive dissonance

also known as compartmentalization

[Anonymous No.1675795]

>>1675296
forgiving everything you feel as injustice against you

[Anonymous No.1675877]

>>1675508
Aww that's cute. You missed the point entirely.

>It doesn't equal smart, it's just that smart people are most likely to reach that conclusion.

This is my point. People who think like this are ignorant morons. There are rational explanations for almost everything THAT WE CAN OBSERVE AND UNDERSTAND. Does that mean that if we can't observe/understand something that it's existance is impossible? You are a child, with childish opinions that you wield thinking they make you sound smart. The more you understand about the universe, the more you realize you don't know. The cutting edge of astrophysics and cosmology are discovering new things nearly daily, which may change the way we look at the universe on a fundamental level. How myopic of you to take our current, limited understanding and declare that it defines all possibilities.

>Of course that believing in a zombie that is his own father...

I never said anything about the "God of Abraham", you twit. It's people like you who really give atheists a bad name. You're as close-minded and simple as the religious fundamentalists that you so enjoy deriding.

[Anonymous No.1675933]

Because smart people never say stupid things right? Smart people have some sort of magical aura that prevent them from being wrong in any condition right?

Everybody makes mistakes.

[Anonymous No.1676298]

>>1675412
Ah, hell. I passed the fuck out before I saw your reply.

The basis of observation is that you can SEE the results of your moral choices.

Banning behaviors does not make children moral. Learning from your choices does. If children can see that the results of certain behaviors results in effects that hurts their lives, they will avoid those problems with understanding instead of fear and/or desire.

D.A.R.E. teaches kids to be the worst junkies on earth, whereas kids that see people simply wasting their lives to drugs, AND NOTHING ELSE EFFECTS THOSE PEOPLE, ie, government is not the punisher/protector, the drug-users only suffer from the results of their choices, then the kids will be able to make informed moral decisions about drugs, for example.

That is what I mean by "Observation."

Ugh, need coffee.

[Anonymous No.1676330]

>>1675493
>autodidact

[Anonymous No.1676352]

I am not religious. I do not blindly believe a single man. Especially when this is all about the "IQ".

[Anonymous No.1676370]

>This thread

[Anonymous No.1676380]

>>1675038
How come the smartest man in the world has not published his proof of the existence of God with math?

[Anonymous No.1676391]

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/CTM.htm

>Chris Langan places ID on the same level of validity as evolution

Ok, yeah, I was mistaken. This guy is a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.1676395]

>>1675038
> he still thinks IQ has something to do with intelligence

laughinggirls.jpg

[Anonymous No.1676442]

>>1676298
And the Christian moral code is the best possible observable moral outcome while on this sinful planet. Living your life in love and being of complete service to others while suppressing your desires, longing for communion to return to the creator. The greatest commandment in the bible as stated by Jesus was to love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. The second was to love your neighbor as yourself.

[Anonymous No.1676453]

>>1675045
cite note 2

For the phrase "the smartest man in America", see Sager 1999, Fowler 2000, Wigmore 2000, and Brabham 2001. O'Connell 2001 (in the standfirst) uses "the smartest man in the world", and Quain 2001 (on the cover) uses "the Smartest Man Alive".

[Anonymous No.1676473]

>>1675038
Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

Repeatable, independently verifiable proof, or it's just rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.1676573]

>>1676442

You know, I see a LOT of southern "Christians" that make all the same bad and uneducated moral choices that that ALL HUMANS MAKE.

Your example is a fetish.

[Anonymous No.1676602]

>>1676380
>has not published his proof of the existence of God with math?

Opinions man, how do they work?

>has claimed that "you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."

This is his personal opinion, that God can be proven with mathematics. No evidence, proof or formulas were given, just one more ivory tower scientist talking big.

[Anonymous No.1676606]

>implying IQ is relevant and a good way of testing intelligence

I don't think so tim.

[Anonymous No.1676610]

>>1676602
They never claimed he was a scientist, either.

[Anonymous No.1676614]

>>1675038
>"you can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."[
>"I haven't done it but you can totally do it!"

[Anonymous No.1676633]

He's a Christian deist.

He's so damned sucked up in his beliefs that is interferes with his rationality, so he reciprocates by believing that you can explain God and the afterlife through mathematic methods.

If such a thing does exist, he's right. How is that even up for debate? If something physically exists within the universe, it can be explained through mathematics.

Though, the only error is: he BELIEVES that HE can explain it with our current knowledge of mathematics and the natural world. He isn't sane.

[Anonymous No.1676665]

>>1675877
>There are rational explanations for almost everything THAT WE CAN OBSERVE AND UNDERSTAND. Does that mean that if we can't observe/understand something that it's existance is impossible?
If we can't observe something, why bother considering its existence?
In science, you either work towards proving your claim or not make the claim at all.
Saying that noone should reject any claim just because it could hypothetically be true is moronic.
>You are a child, with childish opinions that you wield thinking they make you sound smart.
I'd rather say it's children who have a tendency to make things up and then get offended when it's pointed out it was just their imagination.
That and they also tend to resort to ad hominems.
>The more you understand about the universe, the more you realize you don't know.
The more you understand about scientific rigor, the more you realize empty claims are worthless.
>The cutting edge of astrophysics and cosmology are discovering new things nearly daily, which may change the way we look at the universe on a fundamental level.
Or it may not. Assuming that you're right out of speculation might look rhetorically convincing, but is argumentatively void.
>How myopic of you to take our current, limited understanding and declare that it defines all possibilities.
How romantic of you to take our limited knowledge about the Universe and assume it gives us free hand to make any claim whatsoever, without it being scrutinized.
>I never said anything about the "God of Abraham", you twit.
Hence why I also mentioned Zeus. Does it really matter how many imaginary creatures I mention?
>It's people like you who really give atheists a bad name. You're as close-minded and simple as the religious fundamentalists that you so enjoy deriding.
Sure, keep telling that to yourself. After all, it's not like the scientific rationale is to actually test hypotheses - it's about making them! And lots of them!

[Anonymous No.1676692]

>>1676633
>If such a thing does exist, he's right.

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.1676695]

>>1676692

No citation needed, it's just common sense.

[Anonymous No.1676708]

News flash, I don't care what your opinion about the correlation between intelligence and IQ is, a man who scored 195+ is a genius, on all possible scales.

[Anonymous No.1676709]

>>1676695
No, you're wrong, and he's trolling.

Proven to be bullshit, so you need an example.

Hence: [citation needed], because religion is NOT proof of morality.

[Anonymous No.1676713]

>>1676708
Unless he's a trolling troll.

[Anonymous No.1676715]

http://www.chat-disorder.net/
Becuase you loonatics'll love it come on 4chan this one's for you ;)

[Anonymous No.1676716]

>>1676709

Morality is completely irrelevant to my argument

Determinism hasn't been proven to be bullshit.

I never said it was practical to explain the "heaven and God" through mathematics or that it ever will be, I'm merely saying that it's "possible".

Understand the difference?

[Anonymous No.1676718]

>>1676708
I scored a 178 on an IQ test.

Why am I on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.1676722]

>>1676716
Trolled hard as fuck.

[Anonymous No.1676739]

>>1676708
Your IQ must be 85.

[Anonymous No.1676761]

>>1676739
It really isn't.

[Anonymous No.1676766]

It just goes to show how useless IQ is.

[Anonymous No.1676768]

High IQ = good logical reasoning

High IQ != smart

[Anonymous No.1676785]

>>1676718

At what age did your take your test? No valid IQ test has a roof so high.

GOD DAMNIT, I WAS JUST TROLLED AGAIN!

[Anonymous No.1677022]

>>1676785

[McFaggot No.1677030]

OBVIOUSLY IT IS A FUCKING HOAX, THIS FAGGOT COMES FROM AMERICA?

OK, HE IS AN AMERICUNT!!!!

RED FLAG RIGHT THERE

[Anonymous No.1677045]

My problem with this is... how can you answer a philosophical question using mathematics? It doesn't make any sense.

Is God a number? A quantity? A value?

[Anonymous No.1677153]

>>1677045
Biologist detected.

[Anonymous No.1677170]

>>1675046

Godel didn't actually believe in God. He was just waiting for someone to prove him wrong.

[Anonymous No.1677175]

>>1677045
a constant
G = 0

[Anonymous No.1677200]

>>1677045

God is a boolean value. It's false.

[Anonymous No.1677305]

>>1677175

G = origin

Him giving a shit about an intellectual deterministic response to creation = 0

[Anonymous No.1677318]

>>1677305

So, God loves you, but you are not his concern.

[Mr. Hyde !!cPIqDLBbmTg No.1677928]

QUATTRO HE IS A CHAR!

[Anonymous No.1677962]

>>1677318

>offers eternal life in a utopian society if you just believe in him
>not his concern

[Anonymous No.1678088]

william james sidis was here
chris langan is a loser

[Anonymous No.1678202]

This was a actually a pretty good thread to read. Plus, nice troll OP.

Also while I'm here, was Godel the one who formulated the proof of God's existence, but hid it away because he was scared people would think he was a christfag? Also, as a physicist and not a logician, can someone give me the low down on the proof and what became of it. Cheers bros.

[Anonymous No.1678231]

>>1678202
>>1677170

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel#Religious_views

[Anonymous No.1678248]

>He has recently been profiled in Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers: The Story of Success,[26] where Gladwell looks at the reasons behind why Langan was unable to flourish in a university environment. Gladwell writes that although Langan "read deeply in philosophy, mathematics, and physics" as he worked on the CTMU, "without academic credentials, he despairs of ever getting published in a scholarly journal".[27] Gladwell's profile on Langan mainly portrayed him as an example of an individual who failed to realize his potential in part because of poor social skills resulting from, in Gladwell's speculation, being raised in poverty.[28]

Faggot detected.

[­ No.1678286]

>>1675038
OK OP, you've convinced me. I believe in God now. Congratulations. However, this doesn't mean that anything else about me changes at all. I live exactly the same, I don't go to church, I still pirate music and software, drink, swear, have sex outside of marriage, occasionally steal.. the list goes on. I have NO intention of changing my way of life whatsoever. I'm going to go to hell? I'm OK with that. I'm disrespecting God? Fuck God, I say; bring him before me, I'll spit in his face and flip him off. So you see, you've accomplished NOTHING here, OP, except to make a complete fool of yourself.

..oh, and the crowning glory? You're defiling yourself by coming to 4chan, and you're disrespecting the God that you claim to love so dearly. 4chan, a haven for pedofiles, gays, and the morally bankrupt the world over. Is there enough pennance you can do for soiling yourself in such a way? There might not be, OP.

You and I may be sharing a cell in Hell when judgement day comes. How does that make you feel, OP?

[Anonymous No.1678365]

>>1678286

I can't really work out if this is troll or trolled.

[Anonymous No.1678416]

>>1676573
>You know, I see a LOT of southern "Christians" that make all the same bad and uneducated moral choices that that ALL HUMANS MAKE.
You are wise to put Christians in quotes. The rules given by Christ are
1.)Love God with all your heart.
2.)Love your neighbor as yourself.

If you can come up with better moral principles, whatever, but don't tell me that those "christians" who make "bad choices" live by those rules. And besides, if you actually have reason, and use it to determine what is right and wrong, you will end up CONFIRMING what is in the bible...

[Anonymous No.1678433]

>>1678416

>Matthew 10:34

I'll just leave this here

[Anonymous No.1678441]

>>1677962
Now this is interesting... What exactly would you consider a Utopian society? Ask yourself this. If all of your material needs were met, what reason would there be to live? God offers ETERNITY in "heaven." What possible motivation would you have to live for an eternity? It would have to be a non-materialistic goal... a spiritual goal.

Which is why "heaven" would seem like hell to nearly everyone in this thread
(And thoughts and knowledge are materialistic too)

[Anonymous No.1678447]

>>1678433
What?

[Anonymous No.1678455]

>>1675214
implied by godel's incompleteness theorems

[Anonymous No.1678508]

>>1678433
Again, what?

[Anonymous No.1678534]

>>1678433
>>1678433
>>1678433

...

[Anonymous No.1678542]

>>1675038

He's a idiot obviously just like a calculator only a bit more sophisticated.

[Anonymous No.1678564]

>>1678441

Dude I'm not the other guy but you are thinking to hard (and wrongly) on a very simple idea.

You will be happy for eternity. Nobody can rationally claim that he doesn't want that.

[Anonymous No.1678585]

>>1678286

>except to make a complete fool of yourself.

How ironic.

[Anonymous No.1678625]

>>1678564
You are thinking in terms of human happiness, or rather, materialistic happiness, which is always relative and short lived. Spiritual happiness is an entirely different thing altogether, and that is my point. To "make it" into heaven, you have to be driven by spiritual goals, not material ones.

You really need to think about what it means to be "happy" forever.

[Anonymous No.1678654]

>>1678625

No you are going overboard.

First there is no material or spiritual happiness. Material happiness is happiness still irrelevant of it's durability.

And you don't go to heaven and make yourself happy. You are 100% guaranteed to be happy in heaven. It's not depended upon you and you can't escape it. But it's happiness so you can't rationally refute it. It's the end go. You don't refute happiness. That's irrational.

[Anonymous No.1678671]

>>1678654
That sounds like bullshit, and you sound like a Christian.

Trust me, if you knew what you were talking about we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Anonymous No.1678686]

OOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLDDDDDDDDDDDDD

[Anonymous No.1678690]

>>1678671

>That sounds like bullshit,

Only because you can't think rationally! And it "sounds" but you didn't provide any counter arguments.

>and you sound like a Christian.

How so? For being rational and open minded? And you don't need any personal attacks.

>Trust me, if you knew what you were talking about we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That is REALLY rational. You are some kind of omniscient guy perhaps? A God maybe?


P.S. If that was a troll. Good job!

[Anonymous No.1678739]

>>1675038

[Anonymous No.1678760]

>>1678690
>and you sound like a Christian.
well, it was an attack of sorts. Let me put it this way, a lot of Christians (so called) consider that they know what the end game is without having any direct knowledge of it. They merely rely on what others have told them.

I have direct knowledge of certain things, so when I hear anyone, Christian or not, giving erroneous evaluations, it is frustrating, because they are wrong, and they are only wrong because they rely on what others tell them.

Imagine if you were me, and you knew the earth was round and everyone else was saying the earth was flat. If they EVEN STATE that the earth is flat, you know that they couldn't POSSIBLY have arrived at that conclusion from direct knowledge.

Furthermore, there is no "afterlife" in the sense that most Christians believe. There is no "otherworldly" heaven, its just this one universe, this one reality. In other words, the rules in heaven are the same as the rules in this world.

Many people would rather die than live for eternity. That is the equation pure and simple. Either you live from a spiritual center, and are content to live forever, or you don't live forever.

There is no "magical" land where someone can be happy forever. It simply cannot be done, and the fact that you don't know that is evidence to me that you believe in things which can't be.

[the winner of the prize No.1679309]

>That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind.

>my face when I used to be all about this idea after 5 or 6 bong rips