Michio Kaku: God Created the Universe

[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. 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.

As I have been saying all along, I am trying to explain the TRUTH and have been doing so. It's not a bald faced lie. You could say I was wrong, but I am not deliberately telling you a lie. The concept that is important is that God was the sole eyewitness and that it's God's word. If we did not find the Bible, then there would have been nothing to verify from those times or any time. Science backs up the Bible so there are things to verify and they have been verified (not just by me); It has been peer-reviewed by those expulsed from science.

Moreover, I do know evolution from evolution.berkeley.edu (and more!) and have passed the 7th grade science test. Thus, you are wrong again and have egg on your face.

 

[james bond]

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.

The spirituality of math is that it was created by humans and found in nature. By spirituality, I guess you mean the latter and that nature backs God up. As for your "physics without mathematics" concept, that's not what I learned. Physics would not be very practical and would cease to exist.

I did not understand your last statement above. How is the hypothesis of multiverses based solely on mathematics and not physics? To me, it is cosmology or philosophy. It's based on erroneous cosmic inflation and even more proliferation of spacetime than just one universe.

BTW there is only one universe or else we would not be saying universe .

 

[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.

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.

Supernaturalism under the guise of Christian Creationism has not provided evidence of anything, Until theology or fundamentalist Christian creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Arguments for supernatural creation only serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And on its own empirism is "only" a philosophy.

...as typed on your quantum mechanical machine, as sent over distance via electromagnetic and relativity theory, as shown to our eyes via photoelectic effect...

But hey, you could have used one of those other "just philosophies" and prayed the message to us, or shouted it into the air and hoped empiricism was "just a philiosoohy" and the message would reach our ears via some sort of divine will....

.....buuuut, you didn't.

 

[james bond]

Supernaturalism under the guise of Christian Creationism has not provided evidence of anything,

Wrong. It explained what was created and how it was created. It gives creation scientists a head start. Now, the information given like that in the news still has to be verified and it was. When I say science backs up the Bible, we find what was stated is observable, testable and falsifiable. None of the universe from quantum physics can be observed, tested nor falsified. I'm not poo pooing quantum physics, but the claim that the universe came out of this is impossible. What is unfair is, the atheist scientists do not consider another dimension through spacetime, but only look at multiple universes.

 

[Hollie]

Supernaturalism under the guise of Christian Creationism has not provided evidence of anything,

Wrong. It explained what was created and how it was created. It gives creation scientists a head start. Now, the information given like that in the news still has to be verified and it was. When I say science backs up the Bible, we find what was stated is observable, testable and falsifiable. None of the universe from quantum physics can be observed, tested nor falsified. I'm not poo pooing quantum physics, but the claim that the universe came out of this is impossible. What is unfair is, the atheist scientists do not consider another dimension through spacetime, but only look at multiple universes.

Fundamentalist Christian Creationism simply makes appeals to supernaturalism. You can insist that a unique set of gods, through supernatural powers created the universe but that does nothing to support your claim. Your claims to supernaturalism also run counter to competing claims of supernatural intervention. What sets your claims apart from the others?

As a rebuttal to peer-reviewed science of astronomy and physics, I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their ”General Theory of Supernatural Creation” ™ that would confound the Scientific data and life sciences. Why not something along those lines and then supply some testable evidence to show specific circumstances of how, not just any god(s), but your particular gods can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

 

[james bond]

Supernaturalism under the guise of Christian Creationism has not provided evidence of anything,

Wrong. It explained what was created and how it was created. It gives creation scientists a head start. Now, the information given like that in the news still has to be verified and it was. When I say science backs up the Bible, we find what was stated is observable, testable and falsifiable. None of the universe from quantum physics can be observed, tested nor falsified. I'm not poo pooing quantum physics, but the claim that the universe came out of this is impossible. What is unfair is, the atheist scientists do not consider another dimension through spacetime, but only look at multiple universes.

Fundamentalist Christian Creationism simply makes appeals to supernaturalism. You can insist that a unique set of gods, through supernatural powers created the universe but that does nothing to support your claim. Your claims to supernaturalism also run counter to competing claims of supernatural intervention. What sets your claims apart from the others?

As a rebuttal to peer-reviewed science of astronomy and physics, I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their ”General Theory of Supernatural Creation” ™ that would confound the Scientific data and life sciences. Why not something along those lines and then supply some testable evidence to show specific circumstances of how, not just any god(s), but your particular gods can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

I think you are making up your own "supernaturalism" and attributing it to creation scientists. That is not proper science nor religion. Why don't you pick one out of these scientists and the supernaturalism can be discussed?

Creation scientists - creation.com

 

[zaangalewa]

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.

The spirituality of math is that it was created by humans and found in nature.

Human beings "create" mathematics (mathematicians say they discover mathematics) but no one creates anything what has to do with nature. The knowledge about natural laws - specially in context with mechanics and electricity - make our lifes much more comfortable. We do not make this laws - we use it, that's all.

By spirituality, I guess you mean

?

the latter and that nature backs God up. As for your "physics without mathematics" concept, that's not what I learned.

You ignore now intentionally what I said to you. Try to imagine a universe without natural laws.

Physics would not be very practical and would cease to exist.

I did not understand your last statement above. How is the hypothesis of multiverses based solely on mathematics and not physics?

Not any experiment possible in this case. Not even an experiment by thoughts. The physicists in former times had said "Ignoramus, ignorabimus" to such an "hypothesis".

To me, it is cosmology or philosophy. It's based on erroneous cosmic inflation and even more proliferation of spacetime than just one universe.

A nice idea - but what about when an inflation (¿into what?) never had happened for example? Physics is full of absurde ideas since English became the lingua franka of physics. Physicists speak for example about "white holes" - but black holes do not lose anything except Hawking radiation - if the Hawking radiation really exists, what no one knows too. Experiments are possible in this case, so it is a good idea. But what for heavens sake is the substance of an idea like "white holes" - except fantasy?

BTW there is only one universe or else we would not be saying universe .

Hä? ah sorry "Huh?" A paradigma of science is : "Everywhere in the world exist the same natural laws". A short form of this is "Universe" - from "universum" for "Catholic" - ah sorry - for "whole" (verbally "one truth","same realilty"). Other words for universe are "world", "reality", "Cosmos". The German word is "All" for example. After long studies I found out the German word "All" means the same what the english world "all" means. Indeed could our universe be part of a multiverse. But "ignoramus, ignorabimus" - so that's a question of belief and not a question of physics. But its perhaps a good idea for phycisists to think about universes with different natural laws. They might understand in a better way what happens here. And when I meditated about a universe without natural laws, I was not able not to give this universe the name "hell". This may help other beliefers not to see in the chaos a hell but a concept of complex order which bears often new things too - if we may avoid the destructive side of the chaos.

 

[james bond]

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.

The spirituality of math is that it was created by humans and found in nature.

Human beings "create" mathematics (mathematicians say they discover mathematics) but no one creates anything what has to do with nature. The knowledge about natural laws - specially in context with mechanics and electricity - make our lifes much more comfortable. We do not make this laws - we use it, that's all.

By spirituality, I guess you mean

?

the latter and that nature backs God up. As for your "physics without mathematics" concept, that's not what I learned.

You ignore now intentionally what I said to you. Try to imagine a universe without natural laws.

Physics would not be very practical and would cease to exist.

I did not understand your last statement above. How is the hypothesis of multiverses based solely on mathematics and not physics?

Not any experiment possible in this case. Not even an experiment by thoughts. The physicists in former times had said "Ignoramus, ignorabimus" to such an "hypothesis".

To me, it is cosmology or philosophy. It's based on erroneous cosmic inflation and even more proliferation of spacetime than just one universe.

A nice idea - but what about when an inflation (¿into what?) never had happened for example? Physics is full of absurde ideas since English became the lingua franka of physics. Physicists speak for example about "white holes" - but black holes do not lose anything except Hawking radiation - if the Hawking radiation really exists, what no one knows too. Experiments are possible in this case, so it is a good idea. But what for heavens sake is the substance of an idea like "white holes" - except fantasy?

BTW there is only one universe or else we would not be saying universe .

Hä? ah sorry "Huh?" A paradigma of science is : "Everywhere in the world exist the same natural laws". A short form of this is "Universe" - from "universum" for "Catholic" - ah sorry - for "whole" (verbally "one truth","same realilty"). Other words for universe are "world", "reality", "Cosmos". The German word is "All" for example. After long studies I found out the German word "All" means the same what the english world "all" means. Indeed could our universe be part of a multiverse. But "ignoramus, ignorabimus" - so that's a question of belief and not a question of physics. But its perhaps a good idea for phycisists to think about universes with different natural laws. They might understand in a better way what happens here. And when I meditated about a universe without natural laws, I was not able not to give this universe the name "hell". This may help other beliefers not to see in the chaos a hell but a concept of complex order which bears often new things too - if we may avoid the destructive side of the chaos.

Too much to rebut, but math is also found in nature and the universe. Is it supernatural as in Genesis? I mean we see the intelligence behind God's design. It can't just happen by chance.

"Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone — while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" Job 38: 4-7



I'm not sure what you are using physics for and claim mathematics to explain multiverse? You refer to Hawking radiation, but that's quantum physics. You seem to be all over the place to me without much focus. Maybe you know more than me because I have no idea what things you are talking about.

ETA: Where Hawking failed was in trying to explain singularity. In order to have his infinite temperature and density, there had to be space (even for quantum particles to exist) and there had to be time, i.e. spacetime. Even Hawking agreed, but couldn't explain it. Thus, this is probably why Kaku is agreeing that there had to be a God. William Lane Craig was right with his Kalam cosmological argument.

 

[Hollie]

Supernaturalism under the guise of Christian Creationism has not provided evidence of anything,

Wrong. It explained what was created and how it was created. It gives creation scientists a head start. Now, the information given like that in the news still has to be verified and it was. When I say science backs up the Bible, we find what was stated is observable, testable and falsifiable. None of the universe from quantum physics can be observed, tested nor falsified. I'm not poo pooing quantum physics, but the claim that the universe came out of this is impossible. What is unfair is, the atheist scientists do not consider another dimension through spacetime, but only look at multiple universes.

Fundamentalist Christian Creationism simply makes appeals to supernaturalism. You can insist that a unique set of gods, through supernatural powers created the universe but that does nothing to support your claim. Your claims to supernaturalism also run counter to competing claims of supernatural intervention. What sets your claims apart from the others?

As a rebuttal to peer-reviewed science of astronomy and physics, I would expect that creationists would be able to cite some data from their ”General Theory of Supernatural Creation” ™ that would confound the Scientific data and life sciences. Why not something along those lines and then supply some testable evidence to show specific circumstances of how, not just any god(s), but your particular gods can be identified as the causation of existence and the diversity of life on the planet.

I think you are making up your own "supernaturalism" and attributing it to creation scientists. That is not proper science nor religion. Why don't you pick one out of these scientists and the supernaturalism can be discussed?

Creation scientists - creation.com

On the other hand, why don’t you show us the peer reviewed work submitted by Flat Earth folks at creation.com. We know with certainty that ID / creationism cannot survive the process of debate/scientific testing/peer review that the relevant scientific community must pass. What we're left with on the ID / Flat Earth side is fraudulent creation "journals" and appeals to supernaturalism.

Let's see the Flat Earthers do real science. Let's see them present their young earth and "the fosill record is a conspiracy", loons before the relevant community of scientists, especially those in geology/paleontology, biology, and physics, to defend their claims. But, again, the religious fundamentalists who represent the Supernaturalists refuse to step up to the plate and perform the scientific experiments or publish in mainstream peer-review scientific journals to support their claims to supernaturalism. Instead, ID/creationism/religious/quacks advocates try to manipulate the legal and political process to sidestep the scientific peer review process. And of course they must because scientific ideas have to earn their way to a scientific consensus by way of repeatable results, peer review, etc., which is what supernaturalists cannot do.

 

[zaangalewa]

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.

The spirituality of math is that it was created by humans and found in nature.

Human beings "create" mathematics (mathematicians say they discover mathematics) but no one creates anything what has to do with nature. The knowledge about natural laws - specially in context with mechanics and electricity - make our lifes much more comfortable. We do not make this laws - we use it, that's all.

By spirituality, I guess you mean

?

the latter and that nature backs God up. As for your "physics without mathematics" concept, that's not what I learned.

You ignore now intentionally what I said to you. Try to imagine a universe without natural laws.

Physics would not be very practical and would cease to exist.

I did not understand your last statement above. How is the hypothesis of multiverses based solely on mathematics and not physics?

Not any experiment possible in this case. Not even an experiment by thoughts. The physicists in former times had said "Ignoramus, ignorabimus" to such an "hypothesis".

To me, it is cosmology or philosophy. It's based on erroneous cosmic inflation and even more proliferation of spacetime than just one universe.

A nice idea - but what about when an inflation (¿into what?) never had happened for example? Physics is full of absurde ideas since English became the lingua franka of physics. Physicists speak for example about "white holes" - but black holes do not lose anything except Hawking radiation - if the Hawking radiation really exists, what no one knows too. Experiments are possible in this case, so it is a good idea. But what for heavens sake is the substance of an idea like "white holes" - except fantasy?

BTW there is only one universe or else we would not be saying universe .

Hä? ah sorry "Huh?" A paradigma of science is : "Everywhere in the world exist the same natural laws". A short form of this is "Universe" - from "universum" for "Catholic" - ah sorry - for "whole" (verbally "one truth","same realilty"). Other words for universe are "world", "reality", "Cosmos". The German word is "All" for example. After long studies I found out the German word "All" means the same what the english world "all" means. Indeed could our universe be part of a multiverse. But "ignoramus, ignorabimus" - so that's a question of belief and not a question of physics. But its perhaps a good idea for phycisists to think about universes with different natural laws. They might understand in a better way what happens here. And when I meditated about a universe without natural laws, I was not able not to give this universe the name "hell". This may help other beliefers not to see in the chaos a hell but a concept of complex order which bears often new things too - if we may avoid the destructive side of the chaos.

Too much to rebut,

To rebut? What's going on in your brain? How to rebut what you don't understand?

but math is also found in nature and the universe.

Now you start to see the problem. Where to harvest 10 pounds of this gift of god?

Is it supernatural as in Genesis?[/Quote9

Mathematics is superuniversal if it really gives an idea about multiverses and if it really is part of other universes too. The only problem: "ignoramus, ignorabimus".

I mean we see the intelligence behind God's design. It can't jut happen by chance.

Intelligence behind what? "Intelligence" is an idea of psychologists in context with human beings. To be intelligent means to be able to articulate problems and to find solutions for this problems. In a most simple case a test for intelligence (intelligence is this what a test for intelligence is measuring) gives a relation to a chance to do a good job - in context with other other important psychological parameters.

"Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

I was always here. Same so with Hiob. Where Hiob is now I don't know. Perhaps I will meet him one day.

[Quore]Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone — while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" Job 38: 4-7

I did not take a look at this video now. It's one hour.

I'm not sure what you are using physics for and claim mathematics to explain multiverse? You refer to Hawking radiation, but that's quantum physics. You seem to be all over the place to me without much focus. Maybe you know more than me because I have no idea what things you are talking about.

ETA: Where Hawking failed was in trying to explain singularity. In order to have his infinite temperature and density, there had to be space (even for quantum particles to exist) and there had to be time, i.e. spacetime. Even Hawking agreed, but couldn't explain it. Thus, this is probably why Kaku is agreeing that there had to be a God. William Lane Craig was right with his Kalam cosmological argument.

Do you like to say black holes need god for an explanation why they exist? Beg your pardon: But god is not a liar. We are able to see and to explain what we see all around without our father too. God gives us not any wrong informations. An explanation like "black holes exist, because god exists" is an empty phrase. Everything in physics exists because god made it. But how works this? A black hole is a point with an infinite energy - but not every black hole is the same. There are different event horizons for example. So one "infinite" is not the same like an other "infinite" for example.

 

[Hollie]

"Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone — while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?" Job 38: 4-7

It seems quite clear that the particular author of the verse above assumed the earth was flat. That was not an uncommon presumption at the time.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Let's see the Flat Earthers do real science. ....

No one ever discussed with Christopher Columbus about a "flat earth". That's only a typical prejudice of the US-American world. Columbus miscalculated the size of the Earth and the position of India. He was only lucky that he was saved from the unknown continent America.

 

[Hollie]

... Let's see the Flat Earthers do real science. ....

No one ever discussed with Christopher Columbus about a "flat earth". That's only a typical prejudice of the US-American world. Columbus miscalculated the size of the Earth and the position of India. He was only lucky that he was saved from the unknown continent America.

More science and less Hollywood is the path toward knowledge.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"there is only one universe...else we would not be saying 'universe' "


Hahaha...oh Bond, sometimes you say the stupidest things....

 

[james bond]

"there is only one universe...else we would not be saying 'universe' "


Hahaha...oh Bond, sometimes you say the stupidest things....

To the contrary, I am right again and have demonstrated so. We found out in this thread that there HAD to be a creator. It's called PROGRESS Fort Fun Indiana. (Progress for the slower non-believers here is not stupid except to you.)

This is even before we had an universe. The only secular science explanation we have is an universe from nothing. An universe from quantum particles needs space. Who provided that space when there wasn't any? Second, for the particles to move, then they need time. We know that without time, everything would be at a standstill. Hawking admitted his quantum particles needed the space, but could not and would not admit time because he would have had to admit a creator -- God.

This fits with Kaku's conclusions. There you go Fort Fun Indiana. Progress.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Bond, you are a fool. You assume as true things which you have failed to argue...you convince ans compel nobody but yourself...and that's why you are facing on an anonymous message board and would get laughed out of the room in the company of educated people....

 

[Mac1958]

Michio Kaku: There is a website that quoted me incorrectly. That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. And the reference I saw said that I said that you can prove the existence of God. My point of view is different. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

So he's an agnostic, as any honest person is.

Nothing to see here.
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery

Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
OCTOBER 16TH, 2017
P.K. FRENCH

Several months ago there was a flurry of headlines claiming that Michio Kaku had proven the existence of God. In this exclusive interview with the famous physicist, Kaku elaborates on what happened.

I&T Today: You recently made a lot of headlines with your discoveries regarding the possible existence of a higher intelligence. Could you explain what you found?

Michio Kaku: There is a website that quoted me incorrectly. That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. And the reference I saw said that I said that you can prove the existence of God. My point of view is different. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That’s called science. However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.

For example, look at reincarnation. If somebody at a cocktail party says that they are Cleopatra or Julius Caesar, how do you disprove that? How do you falsify that? Well, you ask some simple question and they get it wrong. Then you say, “Ha! I falsified your statement.” And they say, “No, the history books are wrong…How do I know the history books are wrong? Because I am Cleopatra. I am Julius Caesar.”

At that point, the conversation is over....​

`

So he's an agnostic, as any honest person is.

Nothing to see here.
.

He clearly believes in, at the very least, a diety. Might he still be an atheist? Yes, if he believes in a clockwork universe.

 

[james bond]

Bond, you are a fool. You assume as true things which you have failed to argue...you convince ans compel nobody but yourself...and that's why you are facing on an anonymous message board and would get laughed out of the room in the company of educated people....

Puhleeze spare me your being a crybaby as it does no good. The secular science of big bang had to have a creator. We talked about dividing by zero (needs a creator) to have infinite temperature and infinite density. We also had to have space for the quantum particles to move around in which Stephen Hawking admitted. One also needs time so these invisible particles can move around to cause the infinite temperature and density at singularity. Maybe the laws of physics didn't apply (unlikely), but I am humoring the atheist scientists like Hawking. Where did the space and time come from? William Lane Craig can explain it to the slow ones like you.