Michio Kaku: God Created the Universe

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sounds just like belief or faith in a magical deity to me.

No, because any scienctist that tends to find that likely (which is in the neighborhood of zero, these days...you need to brush up on the science, singularities are so 1980) would say they think it likely, and not assert it with absolute certainty. Scientists make bets on the evidence. They don't make 100% absolute assertions, like religious people do, and based on no good evidence.. So no, your comparison fails on every level, really.

 

[petro]

Sounds just like belief or faith in a magical deity to me.

No, because any scienctist that tends to find that likely (which is in the neighborhood of zero, these days...you need to brush up on the science) would say they think it likely, and not assert it with absolute certainty. Scientists make bets on the evidence. They don't make 100% absolute assertions, like religious people do. So no, your comparison fails on every level, really.

What the hell are you talking about?
Big Bang is touted as the end all of any discussion regarding the discussion of creation. While ignoring the before of the singularity. Same happens with religion which ignores the before God.
The science in the discussion is irrelevant as the discussion is deeper on what put the science in place as the rules of the universe we live in.
Cosmic accident or intelligence?


Scientists and physicists do not automatically receive a card to the club of athiesm upon receiving their various degrees. Some acknowledge the possibility of a higher intelligence.

 

[zaangalewa]

On the very simple reason because I like to know this

Haha, bullshit. And I don't know why"not nothing" exists. Do you? Nope.

Do you know what's the difference between a question and a stupid ideological statement? I don't know whether an atheistic view to the world makes it more easy to find an answer to this question of Leibniz. So I ask atheists too.

But who cares about "why",

I guess every normal human being. I do not think it exists any culture in the world without the question "why". The intentional ignorance not to ask a real question, because a slipstick is not able to give an answer to this question, is idiotism on an academically high level of total idiocy.

anyway? "How" is what we can actually learn about. "Why" is for writers of fiction.

"Why?" asks for reasons. Some people believe in a world with reasonable explanations. [Natural] scientists for example believe so. Christians too. A more concrete question in this context is for example the question why antimatter and matter existed once in a relation of 1,000,000,000 : 1,000,000,001 parts. All existing matter is the result of this very little disbalance. We are nearly nothing. But the word "nearly" is here the very big word "everything" for materialists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Shouldn't AGW be "testable, reproducible, and falsifiable"?

Universe or planetary things of Great time-and-scale like Astronomy (and Macro-Evolution) are Not necessarily reproducible.
We can test it in other ways however, and we have.

You're too Stupid to debate me, and I won't humor for another 10 pages like some others will.
You lose again.
bye

Lab just reproduced evidence of Hawkins radiation.

LOL.

You stupid fucks refuse to show what happens to the temperature when you control for 120PPM additional CO2. (Hint: nothing happens to temperature)

We can simply look at the climate and see that....

That's not science.

Gotcha. I know when I want an opinion of what is science and what isn't, I run to the first uneducated, ignorant, conspiracy-gobbling slob I can find on USMB. Thanks!

Making an observation is the first step in the "scientific process" (look it up since you're not familiar)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Big Bang is touted as the end all of any discussion regarding the discussion of creation

By whom? Not me. Not the pope.

 

[ding]

Materialists are the first to throw science under the bus when science does not suit their purpose.

 

[zaangalewa]

abu afak

You explain very good why Simon and Garfunkel made the song "sound of silence". They said they made it because of the lack of love in the modern urban societies and the growing unability to communicate with each other. This was in the year 1963. Now in the year 2019 you - and lots of others - demonstrate the "sound of silence" grew from a betonheaded silence to social media walls. No wonder that some people within the USA like to hide themselve with their war mentality behind a wordless wall.

 

[DOTR]

Kaku’s conclusion is pretty is clear.

“The final solution resolution could be that God is a mathematician,” says Kaku. “The mind of God, we believe, is cosmic music. The music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”

“To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

World-Famous Scientist: God Created the Universe

String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

Of course He did. Only animals and communists dont believe in God. And we shouldn't be too quick to assume that animals dont have some kind of dim awareness.

 

[Oddball]

Of course He did. Only animals and communists dont believe in God. And we shouldn't be too quick to assume that animals dont have some kind of dim awareness.

Kaku wasn't talking about the Judeo-Christian God....The use of "God" is in the context of an overall creator.

 

[DOTR]

Of course He did. Only animals and communists dont believe in God. And we shouldn't be too quick to assume that animals dont have some kind of dim awareness.

Kaku wasn't talking about the Judeo-Christian God....The use of "God" is in the context of an overall creator.

Well..yes he was..even if he doesnt know it. Outside of the Judaeo-Christian perception of a transcendent God you only have versions of pantheism. Certainly no "mathematician" gods.

 

[james bond]

I wish Kaku said God is the best theory if he was discussing science. Since he didn't say that, then people will "think" he was being religious. With the Christians, we have the Bible theory, creation science and its scientists. Secular science believed in this before the 1850s. Today, God, the supernatural (Genesis) and the Bible has been systematically eliminated from science.

 

[zaangalewa]

I wish Kaku said God is the best theory if he was discussing science. Since he didn't say that, then people will "think" he was being religious. With the Christians, we have the Bible theory, creation science and its scientists. Secular science believed in this before the 1850s. Today, God, the supernatural (Genesis) and the Bible has been systematically eliminated from science.

First of all the word "supernatural" means nothing else than "metaphysics" and meta-physics were just simple the books "meta" the book of physics in a Christian liberary. Normally this were the books about theology. But nearly everything, what we think about, is meta-physics. The books of Shakespeare for example are meta-physics, mathematics for example is meta-physics, music and all other arts are meta-physics and so on and so on. But everywhere people are able to find the spirit of god. Not only in meta-physics also in physics. So no one eliminated god anywhere in physics. All people of all religions are able to study physics for example.

In physics - better to say in natural philophy or in the philosophy of pysics - male and also female students learn to shave their ideas with Occams razor. And to do so in combination with the very well known truth "no one knows god" the razor of Occam makes clear that concepts of physics do not need theological explanations. A "theory of god" is not part of any physical theory (nevertheles is god part of his creation in Jesus the Christ too) - or with other words: You do not need a wonder to make a bread with butter physically - but besides that the existence of bread is a wonder and the existence of butter is wonder too it's sometimes also a wonder to be able to have bread and butter and to make a bread with butter. And this bread with butter can be the very best meal you are able to eat - this depends on the context of this meal. It exist no science about a single individual life and the most important moments within this life

By the way: Sometimes even some physicists do not use Occams razor correctly. When someone found out that an endless regress of always new universes is impossible, because of the laws of entropy, some other physicists for example started to speak about that we live in the last universe of an regress of universes. Physicists, who are doing so, ignore the rule "Occams razor". Why to postulate an endless regress of always new universes when our universe is the last in this idea? Why not to ignore the whole regress and just simple to say that our universe was created once and we do not know what was before - if there was a "before" at all, "before" it was created?

Lots of the believers in science (believers in science are not scientists!) created very absurde theories about physics meanwhile - and the same happens in statements about the Christian religion too. We - specially the English speaking world - live in a time of absurde discussions. And one of this absurde pseudo-discussion is "science vs religion". Natural sciene is not religion and religion is not natural science. A similiar idiotic discussion is "creation vs evolution". Besides that evolution and creation are totally different things specially as well creationists and evolutionists seem not to be a able to think any longer about the limits of creation and the limits of evolution.

And today the word "deal" seems also start to replace the word "plan" too. Not a good world today, not good for the Christian religion and it's also not a good world today for the enlightenment and the future of natural science. To many ignorants and secret services and to many ideological think tanks are meanwhile envolved in pseudo-scientific discussions and pseudo-religious statements.

 

[Hollie]

I wish Kaku said God is the best theory if he was discussing science. Since he didn't say that, then people will "think" he was being religious. With the Christians, we have the Bible theory, creation science and its scientists. Secular science believed in this before the 1850s. Today, God, the supernatural (Genesis) and the Bible has been systematically eliminated from science.

All the various, unknown authors of the bibles, re-telling of tales and fables that were passed down over and over, as much as two hundred years after the alleged events, it rivals Homers' illiad, in its fantastical content.

When you look at the very deepest foundation of the entire doctrine, when you go to the theological reason the various books were written, you are left with this conclusion the texts tell us over and over:

Ignorance is bliss

Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.

 

[james bond]

I wish Kaku said God is the best theory if he was discussing science. Since he didn't say that, then people will "think" he was being religious. With the Christians, we have the Bible theory, creation science and its scientists. Secular science believed in this before the 1850s. Today, God, the supernatural (Genesis) and the Bible has been systematically eliminated from science.

All the various, unknown authors of the bibles, re-telling of tales and fables that were passed down over and over, as much as two hundred years after the alleged events, it rivals Homers' illiad, in its fantastical content.

When you look at the very deepest foundation of the entire doctrine, when you go to the theological reason the various books were written, you are left with this conclusion the texts tell us over and over:

Ignorance is bliss

Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that any gods exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.

Kaku was just talking about the beginning and the cause. All he did was claim God did it. Creation science already presented more evidence on what happened.

 

[james bond]

First of all the word "supernatural" means nothing else than "metaphysics"

Supernatural in regards to science in the Bible only refers to what happened in Genesis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Creation science already presented more evidence on what happened.

Shameless lie. You don't and never will have a shred of evidence. You take it on faith. Stop being so embarrassed of your faith.

 

[james bond]

Of course He did. Only animals and communists dont believe in God. And we shouldn't be too quick to assume that animals dont have some kind of dim awareness.

Kaku wasn't talking about the Judeo-Christian God....The use of "God" is in the context of an overall creator.

Agreed, he wasn't referring to the Trinity. However, he was saying the BBT is wrong.

 

[james bond]

Creation science already presented more evidence on what happened.

Shameless lie. You don't and never will have a shred of evidence. You take it on faith. Stop being so embarrassed of your faith.

Nothing shameless nor a lie like evolution, BBT and the pitiful wrongness and lies that you post ubiquitously. The evidence is the Bible explains what happened in Genesis and science backs up the Bible. No faith involved in science or else it triggers the God of the Gaps warning for creation scientists. Even Kaku admits God did it. Your ToE does not cover it, so to the contrary, it's you who does not have a shred of evidence and take what happened on faith in atheist scientists. Your so called faith in false science is embarrassing. Accept the truth or face the consequences.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Creation science already presented more evidence on what happened.

Shameless lie. You don't and never will have a shred of evidence. You take it on faith. Stop being so embarrassed of your faith.

Nothing shameless nor a lie like evolution, BBT and the pitiful wrongness and lies that you post ubiquitously. The evidence is the Bible explains what happened in Genesis and science backs up the Bible. No faith involved in science or else it triggers the God of the Gaps warning for creation scientists. Even Kaku admits God did it. Even your ToE does not cover it, so to the contrary, it's you who does not have a shred of evidence and take what happened on faith in atheist scientists. Your so called faith in false science is embarrassing. Accept the truth or face the consequences.

Yet, for all your embarrassing, dishonest self soothing and tantrums, here you still sit...a fool who doesn't know fact one about evolution and would fail a 7th grade science test. You have no evidence or published science on your side, nor is anyone producing any. So you can sit there and tell yourself how pretty you are all night...your cultish voodoo has no real bearing on our empirical knowledge.

 

[zaangalewa]

First of all the word "supernatural" means nothing else than "metaphysics"

Supernatural in regards to science in the Bible only refers to what happened in Genesis.

"Super-natural" is Latin, "meta-physics" is Greek. Both are the same expressions. Mathematics (=super-natural and meta-physics) is for example a kind of spirituality of physics. Mathematics needs not physics and physics needs not mathematics - but in case "physics without mathematics" we are not able to say a lot about physics. The "theory" about multi-verses is for example pure mathematics without any physics. For a Christian such ideas of physicists are fascinating, because only the spirit connects such universes with our universe here - but for a strong empirism which is tolerating nothing else except methods of empirism such ideas are only supernatural nonsense. Nevertheless empirism has to ask itselve what it is on its own. And on its own empirism is "only" a philosophy. And a philosophy is always only an inter-subjective truth and never can be an objective truth - as well as a philosophy is always meta-physics (=pure thoughts) on its own.