Chris Langan's CTMU theory is genuinely brilliant

I will argue that Chris Langan's CTMU theory is not brilliant. This theory seems more like metaphysical diarrhea to me,a "proof" of God by obfuscation. Here is an introduction straight from the horse's mouthhttp://www.ctmu.org...Langan claims to have a logical proof for the existence of God. In the introduction he explains Set Theory. To be a logical proof, it would have to have the same kind of rigidity as the rest of mathematics. Mathematics can be build up from set theory, using theZermolo-Fraenkel axioms together with the axiom of choice (ZFC). The axioms are generally accepted as truth within the mathematical community. However, Langan writes:"In the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, the set of all sets, and the real universe to which it corresponds, take the name (SCSPL) of the required extension of set theory." ZFC is generally believed/assumed to be non-self contradictory. However, if we extend the ZFC model to the SCSPL then there is a risk that the new logical system IS self-contradictory. This is a REAL risk. For example, preliminary models that preceded the ZFC model actually DID have contradictions in them. This is Russel's Paradox:http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradox(This link might not work because of the special characters in the address, but one can go to "Russel's Paradox" on Wikipedia.)If the SCSPL model is self-contradictory, then anything that would be deduced from such logic would be completely useless. So this new theory does not have the same kind of logical rigidity. The second problem I have with this theory is that, as far as I can tell, Langan uses his terms quite loosely. In logic, everything has to be defined exactly. It is a formal language. But the CTMU does not seem all that formal. The problem with that is that the English language is often ambiguous. Langan does not seem to define all the terms he uses, but even if he did, there could be ambiguity because that is inherent to the English language. It also seems to me that Langan makes a lot of assumptions about the physical universe. First I must point out that all theories in physics describe reality, but there are not the same as reality. Newtonian mechanics describes reality pretty well, but at high speeds it breaks down. Relativity theory is a better approximation of the universe, but breaks down at the quantum level etc. etc.But Langan writes:"So mathematicians view sets, broadly including null, singleton, finite and infinite sets, as fundamental objects basic to meaningful descriptions of reality.It follows that reality itself should be a set…in fact, the largest set of all." Just because reality can be modeled by a set in set theory (or SCSPL), it does NOT follow that reality IS a set. Elsewhere, Langan speaks about " topological containment in the physical universe". I guess he claims that the universe is a topological space in the mathematical sense, which is also not clear to me.Anyway, there are lots of problems with this theory. I am just giving a few examples that I fished out of this introduction.PRO writes: "It's pitiful the ignorance that has amassed and germinated from the dissenters of CTMU theory--the orientation of these laypeople are bound by their range, unaware of the encompassing depth of Chris Langan's theory."It is my impression that this theory is an obfuscation. Langan makes the theory more complicated that it needs to be, in order to hide the weaknesses of his arguments. Then, if the dissenters do not understand the arguments, they can be accused of of "ignorance" and "bounded by their range", "unaware of the encompassing depth". But I am not easily fooled.