CTMU thread ctmu.org/ >2015 >being an atheist >havi

>>7474391
Atheists literally can't explain away their metalogical epistemic and ontological problems without resorting to a heuristic and logically untenable view of the cognitive-theoretical framework of our universe.
Prove me wrong, and no name-calling.

I don't think he understand the nature of mind.

>>7474479
He literally does. Just read CTMU and if your IQ is above 160 or so you will understand it too.

>>7474495
We might have had this discussion before, but his theory, like many theories, falls into the problem of other minds. This is something he has to account for, or else his metaphysics is dissatisfying.

>>7474533
>implying CTMU didn't solve the problem of other minds
You're either too dumb to understand it or haven't even read it.

>>7474552
Where do you think he solves it, then?

>>7474552
BTW the only way to "solve" the problem is to create a theory that doesn't have it. So you have to explain why the problem doesn't exist in his theory.

>>7474558
>>7474556
>implying that the epistemological stance of there being other intellects is not the logical equivalent of separating oneself from the info-cognitive lattice of the universe
You're literally denying that you have a soul.

>>7474566
So you're telling me the problem does exist in the theory.

>>7474592
I'm telling you that the cortico-thalamic activity that enables you to ask that question is no the force MAKING you ask that question. To the contrary the metaintelligent universe itself is critical in that oscillation in the fabric of the unversal mind.
Can you get that through your brainlet skull?

>>7474599
That sounds like a non sequitur.

>>7474421
>>7474495

>Misuses "literally" AGAIN.

Wow it's like you want us to know you are a joke.

>>7474630
>>7474620
So here we have an ad hominem attack on a person with a 159 IQ
>ur dum :^P
And a person who isn't intelligent enough to even understand the argument.

>>7474635
>So here we have an ad hominem attack on a person with a 159 IQ

Yes. As you are clearly unaware, an ad hominem is a valid rethorical device when used to draw attention to an actual disconnect between parts of an argument. Against the claim that you should be a better judge of CTMU because of your 159 IQ I oppose the claim that since that score didn't help you understand the proper function of the term `"literally", it would be hard to see how it could help you understand a "Theory of Everything".

File: aspgif3.gif (1MB, 402x432px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 402x432px

>>7474650
>an ad hominem is a valid rhetorical device
OK let me try it with a video of you right now.

>>7474657
>OK let me try it with a video of you right now.

>OK let me literally try it with a literal video of you literally right the literal fuck now. Literally.

>159 IQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>7474657
>Being this childish

dude has that really tall forehead so it can fit his big 200 IQ brain

>>7474630
Do you even memespeak?
'Literally' is acceptable for hyperbole in everyday speech, it is only haram for blatantly non-literal phrases in the stream of 'HURR I LITERALLY DODGED A BULLET xD'.
T. fellow fedora

>>7474391
Chris Langan pls leave

>>7474391

Does nobody in this thread besides OP (the baiter) realize this guy is full of shit?

>>7475359
>advocates eugenics
>full of shit
Pick one.