Scientist says he found definitive proof that God exists

[P@triot]

Well, I'm not saying God must come from anywhere.

However I'm working within the limited theory that the universe must have come from somewhere like a God, and if we work with this logic, then the next step is that God must have come from somewhere.

Why? Please explain that. Based on what theorem? What science? Hell, I'll even take based on "common sense" if you can explain that with even the most basic logic or reason.

What science indicates that there "must be a next step" which proves that something had to create God? Just because God created something complex does not mean that something had to create Him. In fact - quite the contrary - that may be the dumbest "logic" ever. Because that would apply infinitely then. Whoever created something so extremely complex as God by your "logic" must have then been created by someone else. Well...that has to end at some point. There has to be an ultimate creator that was not created by something else. You actually defeat your own argument.

Science? There is no science, we're not discussing science.

We have no evidence that the universe was made by God. But if we ASSUME that this is the case, based on the argument that the universe is COMPLEX, too complex to just have existed, then we have to assume God is complex.

If God is more complex than the universe, and the universe MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED because it is complex, then God is complex too, so.....

Again....you're incapable of explaining why that has to be the case. Just because A. is more complex than B. and A. made B., it doesn't mean that A. had to be made by someone. No where does that theorem even exist. You're literally just making it up yourself.

Not only that, but you actually defeat your own argument. By your "logic" - then GX32 built God. Well, GX32 must be extremely complex to build something as powerful and complex as God, right? So who then built GX32? That would go on infinitely. So who was the first of all of them? And if that person was the first, who built them?!? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your own "logic" is the only irony here...

If God is complex and did not require a creator, then why must there have been a creator for the universe?

Who established that God was "complex"? Frigid?

God is a being. Not human. But a being. Kaku's proof is that science dictates that none of this could be the result of one giant accident.

 

[P@triot]

My faith tells me there is a god. Conservatives have nothing but loathing and hatred for scientists. Now they find one they like. Hypocritical bastards.

My experience is - the more folks KNOW about science, the more humble they become. They start to realize that they are spending their lives staring at puzzles that could not come together by chance.

Religious people make great scientists -- because they know humility from the start. It's only the secular humanists that believe that man is the ultimate authority and creator. Once you meet humiliation in science -- you are freer to wonder and imagine.

Good thing too. If anyone in a lab coat needs humility. It would be Michio Kachuo.

not knowing if there is a god, or unbelief in a god, does not equate to believing "man is the ultimate authority or creator."

Thats a commentary made for claiming some sort of moral or ethical superiority within a conversation.... where none exists.

Bullshit. Everyone of these atheists clearly have their position based on arrogance. Their absurd belief that nothing could possibly be above man and that if they can't understand it, it must not be true. It's pure, unadulterated arrogance.

Atheists and theists are both based on arrogance and ignorance.

Agnostics are those with the humility to admit the unknown is...you know.....ACTUALLY unknown.

How is it "arrogant" for theists to admit that something way more powerful than them exists in the world? And that they can't even explain much of it? That is the polar opposite of arrogance my friend.

 

[The Irish Ram]

According to what we've been told about God, there was no creation of God, God IS THE ALPHA and the OMEGA..... He IS the beginning, he IS also the end....what that truly means, I honestly don't know?

The link did not really explain as much as I would have liked on why Kaku is theorizing this is the case and why he believes we are living in a Matrix...I mean, it did a little, but not enough to satisfy my curiosity!

It means we can be happy that we've solved the mysteries of life, but simply making them up.

And yet, if this same renown scientist had come out and said he had a theory that proves God doesn't exist, you'd ask the mods to sticky it. Did Einstein make up relativity? Did Newton create gravity?

 

[G.T.]

My faith tells me there is a god. Conservatives have nothing but loathing and hatred for scientists. Now they find one they like. Hypocritical bastards.

My experience is - the more folks KNOW about science, the more humble they become. They start to realize that they are spending their lives staring at puzzles that could not come together by chance.

Religious people make great scientists -- because they know humility from the start. It's only the secular humanists that believe that man is the ultimate authority and creator. Once you meet humiliation in science -- you are freer to wonder and imagine.

Good thing too. If anyone in a lab coat needs humility. It would be Michio Kachuo.

not knowing if there is a god, or unbelief in a god, does not equate to believing "man is the ultimate authority or creator."

Thats a commentary made for claiming some sort of moral or ethical superiority within a conversation.... where none exists.

Bullshit. Everyone of these atheists clearly have their position based on arrogance. Their absurd belief that nothing could possibly be above man and that if they can't understand it, it must not be true. It's pure, unadulterated arrogance.

Atheists and theists are both based on arrogance and ignorance.

Agnostics are those with the humility to admit the unknown is...you know.....ACTUALLY unknown.

How is it "arrogant" for theists to admit that something way more powerful than them exists in the world? And that they can't even explain much of it? That is the polar opposite of arrogance my friend.

To "admit" requires KNOWLEDGE.

Faith implies lack of absolute proof.


You can go from there.

 

[JoeMoma]

Well, I'm not saying God must come from anywhere.

However I'm working within the limited theory that the universe must have come from somewhere like a God, and if we work with this logic, then the next step is that God must have come from somewhere.

Why? Please explain that. Based on what theorem? What science? Hell, I'll even take based on "common sense" if you can explain that with even the most basic logic or reason.

What science indicates that there "must be a next step" which proves that something had to create God? Just because God created something complex does not mean that something had to create Him. In fact - quite the contrary - that may be the dumbest "logic" ever. Because that would apply infinitely then. Whoever created something so extremely complex as God by your "logic" must have then been created by someone else. Well...that has to end at some point. There has to be an ultimate creator that was not created by something else. You actually defeat your own argument.

Science? There is no science, we're not discussing science.

We have no evidence that the universe was made by God. But if we ASSUME that this is the case, based on the argument that the universe is COMPLEX, too complex to just have existed, then we have to assume God is complex.

If God is more complex than the universe, and the universe MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED because it is complex, then God is complex too, so.....

Again....you're incapable of explaining why that has to be the case. Just because A. is more complex than B. and A. made B., it doesn't mean that A. had to be made by someone. No where does that theorem even exist. You're literally just making it up yourself.

Not only that, but you actually defeat your own argument. By your "logic" - then GX32 built God. Well, GX32 must be extremely complex to build something as powerful and complex as God, right? So who then built GX32? That would go on infinitely. So who was the first of all of them? And if that person was the first, who built them?!? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your own "logic" is the only irony here...

If God is complex and did not require a creator, then why must there have been a creator for the universe?

Who established that God was "complex"? Frigid?

God is a being. Not human. But a being. Kaku's proof is that science dictates that none of this could be the result of one giant accident.

Perhaps the universe does not have a beginning.

 

[The Irish Ram]

My faith tells me there is a god. Conservatives have nothing but loathing and hatred for scientists. Now they find one they like. Hypocritical bastards.

That is not true. We see a perfect balance between science and God. God created science and used it to form the universes. Einstein didn't create relativity, he merely discovered it was in use. It is fun to watch science catching up to God. Realizing there could be 6, or 11, or an infinite number of dimensions was a treat for scientists. Those reading the Bible already knew there were at least 6. It was how Christ appeared and disappeared at will. Before science, the naysayers were, "Yeah, some one just appears out of nowhere. Right." Now they can say, thanks to science, "Huh, the 6th dimension you say...

Then why was God so tight lipped about conveying such information to humans to help out his creation?

The Bible tells you everything you need to know while your here. Once your spirit drops the clay exterior, your understanding will be at 100% capacity, regardless of your destination.
Want more science, not only did God tell us about dimensions, he gave us their properties. Science hasn't found this out yet, so don't tell, but we know that dimensions can be ripped, rolled up like a stage backdrop, and burned.

 

[The Irish Ram]

My beliefs tell me there isn't a God.

Then allow me to present Pascal's Wager:

Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62).

It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Based on the assumption that the stakes are infinite if God exists and that there is at least a small probability that God in fact exists, Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).

As for not believing because you have unanswered questions, wouldn't it be more prudent to just ask Him when you get there?

Pascals wager means, "be brow beaten into being an intellectual coward, if you dont know something for a fact."

It means choose wisely, much may be at stake. Neither Pascal or Kaku suffer from intellectual cowardice.
And you are who again? And where can I find your intellectual contributions to the world?

 

[Care4all]

My faith tells me there is a god. Conservatives have nothing but loathing and hatred for scientists. Now they find one they like. Hypocritical bastards.

My experience is - the more folks KNOW about science, the more humble they become. They start to realize that they are spending their lives staring at puzzles that could not come together by chance.

Religious people make great scientists -- because they know humility from the start. It's only the secular humanists that believe that man is the ultimate authority and creator. Once you meet humiliation in science -- you are freer to wonder and imagine.

Good thing too. If anyone in a lab coat needs humility. It would be Michio Kachuo.

not knowing if there is a god, or unbelief in a god, does not equate to believing "man is the ultimate authority or creator."

Thats a commentary made for claiming some sort of moral or ethical superiority within a conversation.... where none exists.

Bullshit. Everyone of these atheists clearly have their position based on arrogance. Their absurd belief that nothing could possibly be above man and that if they can't understand it, it must not be true. It's pure, unadulterated arrogance.

Atheists and theists are both based on arrogance and ignorance.

Agnostics are those with the humility to admit the unknown is...you know.....ACTUALLY unknown.

I can sort of agree with that, on Agnostics....but I think you are dead wrong on all Theists...

I believe in God, with all of my heart body and soul....but I have no idea in the logical or rather scientific sense, why...? I am smart, I absolutely love science, I can also see how Atheists may also think I am crazy and have no proof and it is just illogical to believe in something like God...even I think I am crazy some times for what I believe.....

But I STILL BELIEVE IT.... I think Scientists that believed they found the ''God gene'', where people who have the trait tend to believe in God...I must be one of them, because none of it makes sense...but I could not ever believe there is not a God....I just feel and know, there is one...now that is some bat shit crazy stuff to some, on this board and off..and even to me sometimes... There is so much that I don't understand about it all...I just know it to be true, every inch of me, inside and out, KNOWS it to be true...I don't think I could change even if I wanted to....this is so deep, it's irreversible.

I guess what I have is called FAITH...I got it bad!

 

[G.T.]

My beliefs tell me there isn't a God.

Then allow me to present Pascal's Wager:

Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62).

It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Based on the assumption that the stakes are infinite if God exists and that there is at least a small probability that God in fact exists, Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).

As for not believing because you have unanswered questions, wouldn't it be more prudent to just ask Him when you get there?

Pascals wager means, "be brow beaten into being an intellectual coward, if you dont know something for a fact."

It means choose wisely, much may be at stake. Neither Pascal or Kaku suffer from intellectual cowardice.
And you are who again? And where can I find your intellectual contributions to the world?

"choose wisely" doesnt apply.

there's either "what is," or "delusion."

if youre choosing one or the other based on CONSEQUENCE, then THAT, my friend, is the actual personification of COWARDICE.

The choice, in order to be rationally viable, has to he based on evidence and reason.....not "what if x?"

Omg. Basic bitches.

 

[G.T.]

My faith tells me there is a god. Conservatives have nothing but loathing and hatred for scientists. Now they find one they like. Hypocritical bastards.

My experience is - the more folks KNOW about science, the more humble they become. They start to realize that they are spending their lives staring at puzzles that could not come together by chance.

Religious people make great scientists -- because they know humility from the start. It's only the secular humanists that believe that man is the ultimate authority and creator. Once you meet humiliation in science -- you are freer to wonder and imagine.

Good thing too. If anyone in a lab coat needs humility. It would be Michio Kachuo.

not knowing if there is a god, or unbelief in a god, does not equate to believing "man is the ultimate authority or creator."

Thats a commentary made for claiming some sort of moral or ethical superiority within a conversation.... where none exists.

Bullshit. Everyone of these atheists clearly have their position based on arrogance. Their absurd belief that nothing could possibly be above man and that if they can't understand it, it must not be true. It's pure, unadulterated arrogance.

Atheists and theists are both based on arrogance and ignorance.

Agnostics are those with the humility to admit the unknown is...you know.....ACTUALLY unknown.

I can sort of agree with that, on Agnostics....but I think you are dead wrong on all Theists...

I believe in God, with all of my heart body and soul....but I have no idea in the logical or rather scientific sense, why...? I am smart, I absolutely love science, I can also see how Atheists may also think I am crazy and have no proof and it is just illogical to believe in something like God...even I think I am crazy some times for what I believe.....

But I STILL BELIEVE IT.... I think Scientists that believed they found the ''God gene'', where people who have the trait tend to believe in God...I must be one of them, because none of it makes sense...but I could not ever believe there is not a God....I just feel and know, there is one...now that is some bat shit crazy stuff to some, on this board and off..and even to me sometimes... There is so much that I don't understand about it all...I just know it to be true, every inch of me, inside and out, KNOWS it to be true...I don't think I could change even if I wanted to....this is so deep, it's irreversible.

I guess what I have is called FAITH...I got it bad!

And thats cool with me : )

 

[frigidweirdo]

My beliefs tell me there isn't a God.

Then allow me to present Pascal's Wager:

Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62).

It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Based on the assumption that the stakes are infinite if God exists and that there is at least a small probability that God in fact exists, Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).

As for not believing because you have unanswered questions, ask Him when you get there..

That's such a bizarre argument.

What happens if you believe in God, but you get it wrong and end up in hell? Whereas if you don't believe in God, you won't?

We all get it wrong. Thankfully, we have a Father that forgives while we are in the act of getting it wrong. Us getting it wrong was the reason Christ hung on a cross. He paid for all of our wrongs, so we wouldn't have to be punished for them. God's children do not go to hell. period. And if you believe in the work Christ did on the cross then you'll know that God put your sins so far behind Him that He can't even remember them. This from a God that remembers every name of every star in every universe. That is how much He loves you.

What Pascal was saying is, If I believe in God, and live my life accordingly, and there is no God, then I merely die and it's over. No harm, no foul. But if it turns out that I was right, I have an eternity that's so so bright, and without end. By choosing God, I have absolutely NOTHING to lose, and everything to gain.

BUT if you deny God, and live for yourself, and there is a God, then you have lost your eternity as the child and heir of the Most High. And you, (also without end) have risked it all and lost. Your forever will be bleak.
So, if you are going to err, err on the side where you have the most to gain.

You're saying we get it wrong, then saying something is the truth, when you don't know.

Irony.

Yes, if there is a God, and I don't worship God, then I lose. However if there isn't a God, and you worship this God, then you have just wasted your whole life living in a fantasy world. Maybe there is NOTHING after this life, and the only change you get, and you just wasted it.

Lots of maybes, there could be a god who will send you to hell for worshiping a different God, and you'll be screwed, it's possible, EVERYTHING is possible. You choose one and hope it's right.

 

[P@triot]

Why? Please explain that. Based on what theorem? What science? Hell, I'll even take based on "common sense" if you can explain that with even the most basic logic or reason.

What science indicates that there "must be a next step" which proves that something had to create God? Just because God created something complex does not mean that something had to create Him. In fact - quite the contrary - that may be the dumbest "logic" ever. Because that would apply infinitely then. Whoever created something so extremely complex as God by your "logic" must have then been created by someone else. Well...that has to end at some point. There has to be an ultimate creator that was not created by something else. You actually defeat your own argument.

Science? There is no science, we're not discussing science.

We have no evidence that the universe was made by God. But if we ASSUME that this is the case, based on the argument that the universe is COMPLEX, too complex to just have existed, then we have to assume God is complex.

If God is more complex than the universe, and the universe MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED because it is complex, then God is complex too, so.....

Again....you're incapable of explaining why that has to be the case. Just because A. is more complex than B. and A. made B., it doesn't mean that A. had to be made by someone. No where does that theorem even exist. You're literally just making it up yourself.

Not only that, but you actually defeat your own argument. By your "logic" - then GX32 built God. Well, GX32 must be extremely complex to build something as powerful and complex as God, right? So who then built GX32? That would go on infinitely. So who was the first of all of them? And if that person was the first, who built them?!? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your own "logic" is the only irony here...

If God is complex and did not require a creator, then why must there have been a creator for the universe?

Who established that God was "complex"? Frigid?

God is a being. Not human. But a being. Kaku's proof is that science dictates that none of this could be the result of one giant accident.

Perhaps the universe does not have a beginning.

Perhaps....

 

[frigidweirdo]

According to what we've been told about God, there was no creation of God, God IS THE ALPHA and the OMEGA..... He IS the beginning, he IS also the end....what that truly means, I honestly don't know?

The link did not really explain as much as I would have liked on why Kaku is theorizing this is the case and why he believes we are living in a Matrix...I mean, it did a little, but not enough to satisfy my curiosity!

It means we can be happy that we've solved the mysteries of life, but simply making them up.

And yet, if this same renown scientist had come out and said he had a theory that proves God doesn't exist, you'd ask the mods to sticky it. Did Einstein make up relativity? Did Newton create gravity?

I've never, ever asked a mod on any site to ever sticky something (unless it's sticky eettt upah youruh backuhsideuh)

Though I don't really get your point either.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, I'm not saying God must come from anywhere.

However I'm working within the limited theory that the universe must have come from somewhere like a God, and if we work with this logic, then the next step is that God must have come from somewhere.

Why? Please explain that. Based on what theorem? What science? Hell, I'll even take based on "common sense" if you can explain that with even the most basic logic or reason.

What science indicates that there "must be a next step" which proves that something had to create God? Just because God created something complex does not mean that something had to create Him. In fact - quite the contrary - that may be the dumbest "logic" ever. Because that would apply infinitely then. Whoever created something so extremely complex as God by your "logic" must have then been created by someone else. Well...that has to end at some point. There has to be an ultimate creator that was not created by something else. You actually defeat your own argument.

Science? There is no science, we're not discussing science.

We have no evidence that the universe was made by God. But if we ASSUME that this is the case, based on the argument that the universe is COMPLEX, too complex to just have existed, then we have to assume God is complex.

If God is more complex than the universe, and the universe MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED because it is complex, then God is complex too, so.....

Again....you're incapable of explaining why that has to be the case. Just because A. is more complex than B. and A. made B., it doesn't mean that A. had to be made by someone. No where does that theorem even exist. You're literally just making it up yourself.

Not only that, but you actually defeat your own argument. By your "logic" - then GX32 built God. Well, GX32 must be extremely complex to build something as powerful and complex as God, right? So who then built GX32? That would go on infinitely. So who was the first of all of them? And if that person was the first, who built them?!? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your own "logic" is the only irony here...

If God is complex and did not require a creator, then why must there have been a creator for the universe?

Who established that God was "complex"? Frigid?

God is a being. Not human. But a being. Kaku's proof is that science dictates that none of this could be the result of one giant accident.

Again, if the universe is complex, then it wasn't made by a thicko, was it?

 

[flacaltenn]

My faith tells me there is a god. Conservatives have nothing but loathing and hatred for scientists. Now they find one they like. Hypocritical bastards.

My experience is - the more folks KNOW about science, the more humble they become. They start to realize that they are spending their lives staring at puzzles that could not come together by chance.

Religious people make great scientists -- because they know humility from the start. It's only the secular humanists that believe that man is the ultimate authority and creator. Once you meet humiliation in science -- you are freer to wonder and imagine.

Good thing too. If anyone in a lab coat needs humility. It would be Michio Kachuo.

not knowing if there is a god, or unbelief in a god, does not equate to believing "man is the ultimate authority or creator."

Thats a commentary made for claiming some sort of moral or ethical superiority within a conversation.... where none exists.

Didn't actually peg my comment to the question of a god --- did I? The humility I referred to comes from the discipline of the religious. Where they understand the limitations of man's ability to do a lot of things. Dictate morals/ethics to others for instance. Plenty of examples where mere HUMAN authority has gone very wrong. Some humility comes in science when you EXPECT that all that is required to understand science is time and equations. Looking for explanations of systems and observations that SHOULD invoke wonder and awe. Scientists that say that all matter and energy in our Universe once fit in a space the size of a pinhead express that thru FAITH even after they understand the physics because no human can actually wrap their minds around such a concept.

Secular humanists and atheists don't actually acknowledge these limitations or if they do -- it's only a matter of time and money to find the answers. That's pretty arrogant actually. More might be learned by looking at some problems with the eyes of a "Creator".

 

[The Irish Ram]

My faith tells me there is a god. Conservatives have nothing but loathing and hatred for scientists. Now they find one they like. Hypocritical bastards.

My experience is - the more folks KNOW about science, the more humble they become. They start to realize that they are spending their lives staring at puzzles that could not come together by chance.

Religious people make great scientists -- because they know humility from the start. It's only the secular humanists that believe that man is the ultimate authority and creator. Once you meet humiliation in science -- you are freer to wonder and imagine.

Good thing too. If anyone in a lab coat needs humility. It would be Michio Kachuo.

not knowing if there is a god, or unbelief in a god, does not equate to believing "man is the ultimate authority or creator."

Thats a commentary made for claiming some sort of moral or ethical superiority within a conversation.... where none exists.

Bullshit. Everyone of these atheists clearly have their position based on arrogance. Their absurd belief that nothing could possibly be above man and that if they can't understand it, it must not be true. It's pure, unadulterated arrogance.

Atheists and theists are both based on arrogance and ignorance.

Agnostics are those with the humility to admit the unknown is...you know.....ACTUALLY unknown.

I can sort of agree with that, on Agnostics....but I think you are dead wrong on all Theists...

I believe in God, with all of my heart body and soul....but I have no idea in the logical or rather scientific sense, why...? I am smart, I absolutely love science, I can also see how Atheists may also think I am crazy and have no proof and it is just illogical to believe in something like God...even I think I am crazy some times for what I believe.....

But I STILL BELIEVE IT.... I think Scientists that believed they found the ''God gene'', where people who have the trait tend to believe in God...I must be one of them, because none of it makes sense...but I could not ever believe there is not a God....I just feel and know, there is one...now that is some bat shit crazy stuff to some, on this board and off..and even to me sometimes... There is so much that I don't understand about it all...I just know it to be true, every inch of me, inside and out, KNOWS it to be true...I don't think I could change even if I wanted to....this is so deep, it's irreversible.

I guess what I have is called FAITH...I got it bad!

"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
You certainly are your Father's daughter.
‎http://biblehub.com/niv/john/20-29.htm

 

[flacaltenn]

Why? Please explain that. Based on what theorem? What science? Hell, I'll even take based on "common sense" if you can explain that with even the most basic logic or reason.

What science indicates that there "must be a next step" which proves that something had to create God? Just because God created something complex does not mean that something had to create Him. In fact - quite the contrary - that may be the dumbest "logic" ever. Because that would apply infinitely then. Whoever created something so extremely complex as God by your "logic" must have then been created by someone else. Well...that has to end at some point. There has to be an ultimate creator that was not created by something else. You actually defeat your own argument.

Science? There is no science, we're not discussing science.

We have no evidence that the universe was made by God. But if we ASSUME that this is the case, based on the argument that the universe is COMPLEX, too complex to just have existed, then we have to assume God is complex.

If God is more complex than the universe, and the universe MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED because it is complex, then God is complex too, so.....

Again....you're incapable of explaining why that has to be the case. Just because A. is more complex than B. and A. made B., it doesn't mean that A. had to be made by someone. No where does that theorem even exist. You're literally just making it up yourself.

Not only that, but you actually defeat your own argument. By your "logic" - then GX32 built God. Well, GX32 must be extremely complex to build something as powerful and complex as God, right? So who then built GX32? That would go on infinitely. So who was the first of all of them? And if that person was the first, who built them?!? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your own "logic" is the only irony here...

If God is complex and did not require a creator, then why must there have been a creator for the universe?

Who established that God was "complex"? Frigid?

God is a being. Not human. But a being. Kaku's proof is that science dictates that none of this could be the result of one giant accident.

Again, if the universe is complex, then it wasn't made by a thicko, was it?

Since Ole Michio is off on Matrix movie analogies -- I would think that his "theory" of a creator would have a lot more to do with a "rogue app" that generates realities --- than an actual God in a Michaelangelo painting. .

Don't get hung up on the humanizing a "Creator"..

 

[The Irish Ram]

My beliefs tell me there isn't a God.

Then allow me to present Pascal's Wager:

Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62).

It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Based on the assumption that the stakes are infinite if God exists and that there is at least a small probability that God in fact exists, Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).

As for not believing because you have unanswered questions, wouldn't it be more prudent to just ask Him when you get there?

Pascals wager means, "be brow beaten into being an intellectual coward, if you dont know something for a fact."

It means choose wisely, much may be at stake. Neither Pascal or Kaku suffer from intellectual cowardice.
And you are who again? And where can I find your intellectual contributions to the world?

"choose wisely" doesnt apply.

there's either "what is," or "delusion."

if youre choosing one or the other based on CONSEQUENCE, then THAT, my friend, is the actual personification of COWARDICE.

The choice, in order to be rationally viable, has to he based on evidence and reason.....not "what if x?"

Omg. Basic bitches.

The whole field of Quantum physics is based on "what if x?"
And God is, what is. That He hasn't materialized to shake your hand, doesn't mean He hasn't been here in the past, or won't come again. Or that He is a figment of one's imagination.
And Pascal was pragmatic, not cowardly. His point is, without evidence, until there is evidence, why risk everything when you can risk nothing and still be the winner. That is intellectually sound advice.

Consequences are important issues to consider in making any decision. It is prudent, not cowardly. Any decisions whether they be about God or driving 100 miles an hour to the edge of a cliff, should be well thought out beforehand.

The choice is God or no God. He doesn't have to prove Himself before the choice can be made.
Ask Care4all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Science? There is no science, we're not discussing science.

We have no evidence that the universe was made by God. But if we ASSUME that this is the case, based on the argument that the universe is COMPLEX, too complex to just have existed, then we have to assume God is complex.

If God is more complex than the universe, and the universe MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED because it is complex, then God is complex too, so.....

Again....you're incapable of explaining why that has to be the case. Just because A. is more complex than B. and A. made B., it doesn't mean that A. had to be made by someone. No where does that theorem even exist. You're literally just making it up yourself.

Not only that, but you actually defeat your own argument. By your "logic" - then GX32 built God. Well, GX32 must be extremely complex to build something as powerful and complex as God, right? So who then built GX32? That would go on infinitely. So who was the first of all of them? And if that person was the first, who built them?!? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your own "logic" is the only irony here...

If God is complex and did not require a creator, then why must there have been a creator for the universe?

Who established that God was "complex"? Frigid?

God is a being. Not human. But a being. Kaku's proof is that science dictates that none of this could be the result of one giant accident.

Again, if the universe is complex, then it wasn't made by a thicko, was it?

Since Ole Michio is off on Matrix movie analogies -- I would think that his "theory" of a creator would have a lot more to do with a "rogue app" that generates realities --- than an actual God in a Michaelangelo painting. .

Don't get hung up on the humanizing a "Creator"..

Well, a lot of people do get hung up on it. And then they'll believe anything anyway.

Whatever God is, why wouldn't it have been created?

 

[flacaltenn]

Again....you're incapable of explaining why that has to be the case. Just because A. is more complex than B. and A. made B., it doesn't mean that A. had to be made by someone. No where does that theorem even exist. You're literally just making it up yourself.

Not only that, but you actually defeat your own argument. By your "logic" - then GX32 built God. Well, GX32 must be extremely complex to build something as powerful and complex as God, right? So who then built GX32? That would go on infinitely. So who was the first of all of them? And if that person was the first, who built them?!? The fact that you can't see the flaw in your own "logic" is the only irony here...

If God is complex and did not require a creator, then why must there have been a creator for the universe?

Who established that God was "complex"? Frigid?

God is a being. Not human. But a being. Kaku's proof is that science dictates that none of this could be the result of one giant accident.

Again, if the universe is complex, then it wasn't made by a thicko, was it?

Since Ole Michio is off on Matrix movie analogies -- I would think that his "theory" of a creator would have a lot more to do with a "rogue app" that generates realities --- than an actual God in a Michaelangelo painting. .

Don't get hung up on the humanizing a "Creator"..

Well, a lot of people do get hung up on it. And then they'll believe anything anyway.

Whatever God is, why wouldn't it have been created?

God never took the image of man except in the Christian (some Asian) concept(s). Never really specifies anything in the Old Testament other than immortal and omniscient. Never gave Moses a selfie at Mt Sinai..

So I guess where Michio is going off to on his Tachyions and other esoteric physical constructs is that the Creator MAY BE the fabric of the Universe. Time and space exist in a higher consciousness. One that has orderly process for deciding what materials exist on the Periodic Chart, how DNA is programmed, what separates all the dimensions in that space.

This is NOT in general conflict with Religious views. Maybe there isn't a being. Maybe we are INCORPORATED by math and physics into "his" consciousness. One of his visions or flights of fantasy that he constantly creates. And all this SCIENCE just leads to fantasy and awe. Not really to grasping our creation or existence in a Prize winning physics thesis..

It's a humbling less arrogant view of the scientific unknown..