# Michio Kaku: God Created the Universe



## Oddball (Jan 6, 2019)

_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


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jan 6, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...





somewhere in a far off dimension a young ethereal being, gazing down at the universe,  says ....."hey pop.....my science experiments' science experiment just created life!"


----------



## harmonica (Jan 6, 2019)

humans are so flawed it's almost unbelievable 
humans CANNOT comprehend/know/etc the beginning/creation/etc


----------



## petro (Jan 6, 2019)

But, but, but...
Are not all scientists Atheists? 

Actually his point is what I have stated countless times on the gibberish that becomes the evolution vs. creation threads.

Not religious in any sense. But stands to reason that any higher evolved ancient intelligence would have far greater knowledge than us lower evolved primates.

God's flowing white robe is a lab coat.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 6, 2019)

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....​`


----------



## Oddball (Jan 6, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
> 
> *Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery*
> OCTOBER 16TH, 2017
> ...


His position is still that there is ultimately a creator...Whether that is or isn't the Judeo-Chrisian "God" is irrelevant.

That is the point of the OP.


----------



## Death Angel (Jan 6, 2019)

harmonica said:


> humans are so flawed it's almost unbelievable
> humans CANNOT comprehend/know/etc the beginning/creation/etc


That is why we have revelation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 7, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
> 
> *Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery*
> OCTOBER 16TH, 2017
> ...



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


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jan 7, 2019)

Kaku is my favorite physicist. Tyson is a snarky douchenozzle.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 7, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
> ...


*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*


----------



## BlackFlag (Jan 7, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...


Jesus or Allah?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jan 7, 2019)

Where did music come from? Hmm?

Why are major scales happy, and minor scales sad?

Anyone?

The tones tie in directly with human emotion, btw.

Yeah, I got no link for that, but it is what it is.


----------



## petro (Jan 7, 2019)

Humanity is threatened by the infinite since it shows our true insignificance in a massive universe that overwhelmes our limited senses and perceptions.
We are literally blind and dumb as an infant species that can't even comprehend consciousness.
Patterns and non patterns in mathematics leading to the infinite in a variety of ways.
Biology interlaced in a planet wide web of life all carrying the same basic biological program with a built in intense mechanism for procreating.
Complex thought and emotional ability not just limited to humans, but shared in a limited fashion to lower life forms.
A specific set of laws regarding the universe.

In other words, a ton of scientific shit to just pop out of nowhere from a singularity that no one can even prove existed.

What we do observe in my humble opinion just comes across as a very complex design or program.
 Point is, none of us know. May never know.
God, cosmic accident, who cares?
Still holds me in awe when I stare into the night expanse from the north woods.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 9, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



`





`


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 19, 2019)

BlackFlag said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > _Kaku’s conclusion is pretty is clear._
> ...



yes


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 19, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
> 
> *Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery*
> OCTOBER 16TH, 2017
> ...



No - not really. This depends whether we speak about intersubjective truth or objective truth. Indeed we do not know whether we are able to speak about objective truth - but we agree intersubjectively what we accept as an objective truth. Truth is in case of the belief in god and in case of natural science a very similiar word. Natural scienctists believe in one common truth within all phenomenons of the nature. This truth is independent from human beings. It is part of the natural structure of the world. Phycisist (natural philosophers, natural scientists) ask the nature itselve with experiments. And the way they ask this questions is the way of mathematics. Mathematics is the spirtuality of physics. This way we may call an "objective way" to seek for the truth within the natural world all around. The strange thing: The human idea "mathematics" has not any material side. Mathematics is only a kind of summary of totally abstract human thoughts. A pure rational structure. This pure rational structure is somehow part of the world all around, otherwise we could not say anything what's correct in natural science. _"In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and god was the word_" is a sentence, which might sounds reduced into physics like: "_In the beginning was information and information was in [more than] everything and [more than] everything is information_".

In case of Cleopatra and Julius Ceasar we use not experiments but documents tpo fidn out what's rogth or wrong. Nevertheless no one doubts in the existance of Cleopatra and Julius Cesar.

In case of god is the question "Exists god?" a much more complex philosophical question, because god is creator. God created  every form of existance. Did he exist when he did so?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jan 19, 2019)

I thought it was Yoda.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 19, 2019)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Shouldn't AGW be "testable, reproducible, and falsifiable"?
> ...



Noahs ark was made from laymen - the Titanic was made from professionals. Or with other words. Every child understands the story of Noahs Ark. You should try to hear the message of this story. The message is: *Save all and every life! Do it! Now!

*


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 19, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I thought it was Yoda.



Do you try to make a joke? I'm a German. Germans don't have any form of humor.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...



Why and how the big bang came about in the creation of the universe is, of course, a deep mystery. Call that "circumstance" before the big bang "God" if you wish, but that doesn't clarify anything. It is just another word to say it is an unknown circumstance. 

However the "God" understanding of the "circumstance" ends right there. There is nothing more to it that tells us that we should pray to it or that it has a moral code or that it micromanages our lives.

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 19, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Noahs ark was made from laymen -


And Hogwarts was made by magicians.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 19, 2019)

`






`


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jan 19, 2019)

abu afak said:


> `
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Apparently you are incapable of comprehending what's in that one book.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 19, 2019)

abu afak

What for heavens sake do you call "funny" in my words about the close proximity between natural science and the Christian faith? And what kind of argument is this at all?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 19, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> abu afak
> 
> What for heavens sake do you call "funny" in my words about the close proximity between natural science and the Christian faith? And what kind of argument is this at all?


*You post insane/Incoherent gibrish, you need to be in an institution.*


EDIT: and they All have WACKY Youtubes.
This board needs a 'Crazy' rule.
`


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Noahs ark was made from laymen -
> ...



But the magicians of Hogwarts made not the rainbow and did not put it in heaven as a sign of the covenant of god with all human  beings and all animals of planet Earth. No one forces you to be a Christian but every child understands the story of Noahs Ark. If you do not understand it then perhaps because you are not able any longer to think like an Einstein ... ah sorry: like a child. But there's a danger: Jesus said who is not able to be like a child is not able to reach heaven. So as a Christian I would suggest to you: Try to find this form to think again. Try to find all the wonders all around and try to explain them. And perhaps sometimes your daddy in heaven knows a little more a little better. It's never wrong to ask god for help. Don't be frustrated if your thoughts and words alone are sometimes wrong too. There's absolutely no need to think everyone, who is a Christian, is an idiot.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 19, 2019)

abu afak said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak
> ...




Good grieve. Alcohol? Drugs? What do you kow about natural science? What about the real history of natural science? What about philosophy and mathematics? Are you under influence of a criminal organisation like scientology? Why for heavens sake do you say such a nonsense?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 20, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> There's absolutely no need to think everyone, who is a Christian, is an idiot.


I certainly don't think that. Even the smartest people can be fooled into believing utter nonsense. It's part of being human.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 20, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...




It goes without saying.  However you view religion, the very definition of "God" is the supreme original creator of all that is.  I like Kaku, he's a smart guy.  Something had to create the universe;  I like Kaku's idea of God's mind being the music of the cosmic multiverse.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 21, 2019)

Abu afak

Your idiotic anti-opinion, anti-belief and not-knowledge in combination with your anti-communication and unability to express yourselve in a positive emotional and rational way shows to me: You trust in the wrong self-verification of alcohol, drugs and the self-brainwashing pseudo-communication of a closed ideological system. That's a very serios problem, because you will lose the rest of your life, if you don't start to fight for independence from your self-made slavery. Please do never forget: You are important for Jesus, the Christ. He loves you.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 21, 2019)

abu afak

You still do not start to think. You still disqualify yourself.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > There's absolutely no need to think everyone, who is a Christian, is an idiot.
> ...



So why do you call the Christian religion a "foolishing utter nonsense" but not so the belief in atheism?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 21, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> So why do you call the Christian religion a "foolishing utter nonsense" but not so the belief in atheism?


Because default atheism is not a belief. Atheists simply don't accept a belief in gods. Thanks for asking!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 21, 2019)

Maybe there are gods...and unicorns, and fairies...but I am quite sure Michio Kaku does not know if there are or not.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 21, 2019)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


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)


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe there are gods...and unicorns, and fairies...but I am quite sure Michio Kaku does not know if there are or not.


You poor little ego refuses to acknowledge it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 21, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


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


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


That's not science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 21, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


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!


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe there are gods...and unicorns, and fairies...but I am quite sure Michio Kaku does not know if there are or not.



The quality of this "argument" is only a little better than the quality of the nonsense abu afak and others are doing. I stop it now to discuss here. I guess you are satisfied with your  level of "knowledge" in which I am only able to see an ideological indoctrination, which starts always again on a deepest level and never reaches any higher level or anything what's really new. By the way: "God" and "gods" are totally different expressions, which have nearly nothing to do with each other. The god of god is god. Tell me how it is possible that not only nothing exists. Why is not only nothing all around?


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 22, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ... Lab just reproduced evidence of Hawkins radiation. ...



Do you like to say someone found a way to prove the Hawking radiation? 

By the way - Here Stephens favorite song:


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > So why do you call the Christian religion a "foolishing utter nonsense" but not so the belief in atheism?
> ...



What else? I am an agnostics and from my point of view atheism is a belief - nothing else. If agnosticism should be wrong, then perhaps the belief in god is not a belief but knowledge, because Kurt Gödel wrote a mathematical evidence for the existence of god. But I think in the moment exists just simple not any human being, who is intelligent enough to understand what this [mathematical correct] prove of god from Kurt Gödel really means. But I do not see anything what justifies the idea atheism (=anti-spiritualism, materialism) is not a belief.



> Atheists simply don't accept a belief in gods. Thanks for asking!



What atheists accept (tolerate) or do not accept (tolerate) is unimportant for me. Atheism is a spiritual belief. It's the right of atheists not to believe in god and to believe in atheism - but it's not the right of atheists to dominate with their belief complete political systems and societies and/or all other serios religions or serios ways to believe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 22, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> The quality of this "argument" is only a little better than the quality of the nonsense abu afak and others are doing


It wasn't an argument. It was a statement. Don't use words, if you don't know what they mean.



zaangalewa said:


> By the way: "God" and "gods" are totally different expressions


Not to me...I'm not a monotheist or a polytheist...there is zero difference to me, in this context.



zaangalewa said:


> Tell me how it is possible that not only nothing exists.


Why? No answer I give would be any support for theism,much less for your religious dogma you slop onto it. If you have a point to make, you can make it without my assistance.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 22, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> I am an agnostics and from my point of view atheism is a belief - nothing else.


Well your point of view is wrong. Amd if you don't accept a belief in gods, then you are an atheist. Live up to it.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > I am an agnostics and from my point of view atheism is a belief - nothing else.
> ...



You are an ideologically indoctrinated brainwasher with a very bad knowledge about philosophy and science.  Bye bye.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > The quality of this "argument" is only a little better than the quality of the nonsense abu afak and others are doing
> ...



So you do not argue -  you are statementing.



> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > By the way: "God" and "gods" are totally different expressions
> ...



no comment



> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me how it is possible that not only nothing exists.
> ...



On the very simple reason because I like to know this. It's a mystery to me how god made it for the nature much more easy to exist than not to exist.



> No answer I give would be any support for theism,much less for your religious dogma you slop onto it. If you have a point to make, you can make it without my assistance.



I fear I can make everything without your "assistance". But what about the other people of this world here, who need you? Did you decide to leave them all a long time before you will be dead forever?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 22, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> 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.

 But who cares about "why", anyway? "How" is what we can actually learn about. "Why" is for writers of fiction.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2019)

abu afak said:


> `
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Another hater, mired in the dumbed-down either/or mindset.

If you don't have anything worthy to add, buzz off.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 22, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...


Did he clarify which God this was?


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > _Kaku’s conclusion is pretty is clear._
> ...


The big bang is but a theory...One with a number of holes and missing information in it.

I'm not interested in the moral codes of organized religion....Also, the OP isn't about the big "G" religious deity.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > _Kaku’s conclusion is pretty is clear._
> ...


No...Seems to me that he was using the term as interchangeable with "creator"...At least that' the meaning I get.

 Believing in a creator doesn't mean you have to buy into organized religion...That's the way I look at it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 22, 2019)

Oddball said:


> The big bang is but a theory...One with a number of holes and missing information in it.


Like what? The actual big bang theory...that a period of rapid expansion occured about 13 billion years ago ...is solid as can be and is pretty much accepted fact. So I am curious what in the world you are talking about.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The big bang is but a theory...One with a number of holes and missing information in it.
> ...


Missing matter, for one thing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 22, 2019)

Oddball said:


> Missing matter, for one thing.


What about it? What bearing does that have on the big bang theory? I'm not seeing it.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2019)

Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 22, 2019)

Oddball said:


> Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE


I am not going to read a link you never read and don't understand, then spoonfeed it back to you. Go ahead and summarize the points for us.


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Missing matter, for one thing.
> ...


According to the mathematics of the theory, there should be a helluva lot more matter in the universe than there is....Some has been found, but there's still a lot unaccounted for.

Scientists Find Some of The “Missing Matter” in Our Universe


----------



## Oddball (Jan 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang IMPOSSIBLE
> ...


I read it when it was published...It's short and concise enough.


----------



## petro (Jan 22, 2019)

Oddball said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


The Great Singularity, the speck outside the realm of the current structure time/space of the universe creates an immense something out of nothing.
The creation of all matter, space, time, and physical laws from this speck. 
Sounds just like belief or faith in a magical deity to me.
The notion that a higher evolved intelligence could have had a hand in our creation or even that of a larger structure such as the universe that we can sense does not impose the belief in a religious God. I also dismiss the either, or position.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 22, 2019)

Oddball said:


> According to the mathematics of the theory, there should be a helluva lot more matter in the universe than there is.


False. You mean, according to how we see galaxies rotate and drift.  That is an error on your part.

And i don't know who the moron  is who wrote that headline for the "express", but old, supermassive black holes are not upending expansionary theory. They are upending our understanding formation of black holes. Expansionary theory is supported by all the evidence, all the evidence is mutually supportive, and it has yielded useful prediction after useful prediction.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 22, 2019)

petro said:


> 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 (Jan 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds just like belief or faith in a magical deity to me.
> ...


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 (Jan 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > On the very simple reason because I like to know this
> ...



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 (Jan 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


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


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 23, 2019)

petro said:


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


By whom? Not me. Not the pope.


----------



## ding (Jan 23, 2019)

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


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 24, 2019)

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 (Jan 24, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...




 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 (Jan 24, 2019)

DOTR said:


> 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 (Jan 24, 2019)

Oddball said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




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 (Jan 24, 2019)

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 (Jan 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 25, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> 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 (Jan 25, 2019)

Oddball said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## james bond (Jan 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Creation science already presented more evidence on what happened.
> ...



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 (Jan 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


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 (Jan 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > First of all the word "supernatural" means nothing else than "metaphysics"
> ...



"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.


----------



## james bond (Jan 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Supernaturalism under the guise of Christian Creationism has not provided evidence of anything,
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...



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 (Jan 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...




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 (Jan 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



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 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 (Jan 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> "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 (Jan 27, 2019)

Hollie said:


> ... 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 (Jan 27, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > ... Let's see the Flat Earthers do real science.  ....
> ...



More science and less Hollywood is the path toward knowledge.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 27, 2019)

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


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


----------



## james bond (Jan 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "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 (Jan 27, 2019)

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 (Jan 27, 2019)

abu afak said:


> *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 (Jan 27, 2019)

Mac1958 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
> ...



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 (Jan 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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.


----------



## james bond (Jan 28, 2019)

I'm disappointed.  The atheists want proof of God.  They get it and they can't understand it or they do not want to believe it.  It just goes to show people will believe what they want to believe.  Kaku got it right.  We do live in a software program.  We live in a computer simulation.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 28, 2019)

abu afak

I know you have nothing to say. You fight for your right to say nothing but to provocate. Your behavior remembers me to five young people here, who had "discussed" in the weekend a totally stupid banal nonsense. Now two of them are dead because no one of them was able to control the own negative emotions. Perhaps you should really try to find a way to start to think and to speak, because your thoughtless emotional attacks help you and others nothing at all.

Do you know why a football Championship is so wonderful? Nearly everyone in a championship loses - and all this losers learn a lot by losing. Give it up to try to be invincible. Leave the place behind the skirt of your mother and start to learn.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 28, 2019)

Hollie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The prejudce "flat world" (=the Old World believed in a Flat World, while indeed within the Christian Europe always the teachings was the Earth is a globe) was made from an US-American author, who supported the anglo-american stereotype about a kind of superiority of the seddlers in the New World. People who try to find a "New World" - although they don't have any idea what they are looking for - are in the middle of the motivations of the people of your culture. G.W. Bush for example used such a form of argument (Germany is Old Europe = is worth nothing) when he started to prepare his totally idiotic war against the Iraq on completely wrong reasons. And he was successful. He did not only make this senseless war with all its negative consequences - he started also to destroy in this senseless way the good relations with my country Germany. And Donald Trump continues to destroy the relations between Germany including the rest of the world and the USA on reason of totally stupid cliches and stereotypes.


----------



## cnm (Jan 28, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> There's absolutely no need to think everyone, who is a Christian, is an idiot.


I'm not sure about that, you're making a persuasive argument.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> I'm disappointed.  The atheists want proof of God.  They get it and they can't understand it or they do not want to believe it.  It just goes to show people will believe what they want to believe.  Kaku got it right.  We do live in a software program.  We live in a computer simulation.



Better to say often the people think in a form of self-created matrix - but the world is not a matrix. It's not wrong to think in a matrix - if it is more easy for someone to do so. But everyone should know that our "virtualities" are able to be totally irreal, as well as it are also able to be a good presentiment of the real world. Everything is interacting with everything - and we all need everything. It needs for example such an unbelievable big universe for our existence - but the most people say we are only like a little corn in an endless sea. Both is important. If we take a view at a picture of Hubble - the deep field for example - then we see things, which are representing the natural laws which we need to be here. I heard if in only one of the basic natural constants would be a difference in the 16th position (10^-16) then biological life would be impossible. So even in case an endless number of universes would exist and we could see them all, then we had to study 10,000,000,000,000,000 universes to find one universe with life. And this is only one of the basic constants. In case we had to take a look for only 1 second at every universe until we are able to find one with this constant then we would need more than 300 million years to do so. But take a look out of the window and you will see a lot of life .. hopefully, because otherwise something's wrong.

Some people say natural science destroys all wonders. But how is this all around us not able to be a wonder? The world is still wonderful - everywhere - in the far biggest distances as well as in the most nearest nears.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > There's absolutely no need to think everyone, who is a Christian, is an idiot.
> ...



Then don't be convinced - but indeed everywhere in the English speaking world exists the prejudice people are idiots, who believe in creation.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 28, 2019)

abu afak 

You are an extremely good example why it makes not a big sense to try to speak with members of the English speaking world. I hope your culture needs not to long to die and the world has not to suffer to much, because of the decadence of your culture.


PS: Same to you there4eyeM


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 28, 2019)

Same to you there4eyeM

You are an extremely good example why it makes not a big sense to try to speak with members of the English speaking world. I hope your culture needs not to long to die and the world has not to suffer to much, because of the decadence of your culture.


----------



## james bond (Jan 28, 2019)

So what's next?  Maybe a _few_ agnostics and atheists will become deists.  They will believe in a natural God and start questioning evolutionary thinking.  Atheist science with big bang demonstrated God instead of no God, but I doubt those making money from promoting evolution will let their goose that lays the golden eggs go away so easily.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> Maybe a _few_ agnostics and atheists will become deists. They will believe in a natural God and start questioning evolutionary thinking.


That doesn't flow. They would not evolution by virtue of believing in a natiral god. In fact, such a belief would strength their Tru on science. You really do say the stupidest things .


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> So what's next?



Next step? ... Not to misuse the god given might - never. Murder or war and other destructive ways are wrong ways. Pragmatismus is by the way in this context a wrong philosophy too. The war which ends all wars is only an extended way to do suicide.



> Maybe a _few_ agnostics and atheists will become deists.



Every Christian is an Agnostics. That's perhaps the deeper reason why enemies of the Christian religion perverted the expression "agnosticism" into a totally stupid cliche. Agnosticism means not to be able to know god, so to have to believe in god is the way.



> They will believe in a natural God



Creation and nature is nearly the same. But god is creator.



> and start questioning evolutionary thinking.



As Saint Francis did?



> Atheist science



Atheism is a belief. A problem in context of the belief Atheism is it that most atheist believe not to believe. Although every member of every serios religion is able to study physics - Atheism is a serios religion too - is this form "to believe not to believe" a paradox, which is not helpful to try to find out what's right or wrong.



> with big bang demonstrated God instead of no God,



The universe expands - this means it started once to expand. The Early Christians were for example always attacked because they were so stupid to believe in a creator - while everyone else "knew" the world had existed since ever and was not created. They had asked "_And what did do your god before he made the world"_?  It needed a few hundred years until Augustinus found an answer to this question. He said: before god made the world existed nothing - also not any time. Gods word of creation was a timeless word. So god made nothing we are able to know, "before" the heavens and the worlds were created, because there was not any "before". And much more than a thousand years later the physicist Albert Einstein found out that this idea is more than only a spiritual dimension. Indeed it looks like with the so called "big bang" every energy was suddenly here. So in physics exists nothing what's "outside" of the universe (there is no "outside") and what was before (there is no "before"). The universe is in the eyes of this physics without a cause. We could call it also the "first cause", because a first cause is always without cause. This word "first cause" was in history often used for god - but inded its wrong to use it in this way. God is creator - universe is creation.



> but I doubt those making money from promoting evolution will let their goose that lays the golden eggs go away so easily.



"Evolution" know Christians since Christians exist. It's another word for cultivation. The only new component is it that selective breeding is not only made from human beings. A planless nature is also using this mechanisms. One of the worst and most idiotic discussions in the English speaking world is the never ending discussion "creation vs evolution". Creation and evolution are totally different expressions.

Two example for things, which have nothing to do with evolution: A "circle" for example is existing since ever. It never evolved. Otherwise we had to make a difference in physics in a time before "Pi" was evolved and after Pi had been evolved. We could not use the same mathematics. Another example: It exists nothing what we could call "evolution" in case of the "evolution of automobiles". Cars are not biological entities. This machines are products of our growing knowledge in physics and are produced planful (=teleological). And they follow also the laws of fashion and not only the laws of physics. I think nothing is evolution in case of the existence of cars or any other man made machine or product. All things human beings are doing, which we call "creative", start with an inspiration.


----------



## james bond (Jan 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe a _few_ agnostics and atheists will become deists. They will believe in a natural God and start questioning evolutionary thinking.
> ...



Another ad hominem attack as your argument.  Assertions don't count.  You have lost the argument once again.  If I had a nickle for every time you _self-destructed_ on USMB, I think I'd be a very rich man.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 29, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...


That's what I always thought when I was a kid.

Mathematically, why are stringed musical instruments and colors so much like atoms?

WTF? That's just weird shit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 29, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...



Wow, I don't think I've ever watched anyone commit career suicide in real time before.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 29, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
> 
> *Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery*
> OCTOBER 16TH, 2017
> ...



Sounds like a really interesting guy to talk to and hang out with (frequently not the case with brilliant scientist types).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> Another ad hominem attack as your argument.


It wasn't my argument. You don't make arguments, you only make ridiculous, laughably absurd claims. There is no burden on anyone respond to this absurd , authoritative preaching with arguments. Especially considering you areon the wrong side of science amd history .I don't take time to argue against flat-eargers' absurd claims, either. In fact, i don't think you even know what an argument is.

Your absued, authoritative claims come with no argument, and the appropriate response to them is to rebuke and mock them.


----------



## james bond (Jan 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Another ad hominem attack as your argument.
> ...



Then how do you explain the Big Bang Theory?  If there were these invisible quantum particles in crazy motion causing havoc to regular physics and infinite temperature and density, how could they exist if there was no space?  Even Stephen Hawking admitted the quantum particles needed space.  Someone had to create the space.  Next, someone had to create time since these particles had to have motion.

Just because you cannot explain does not make me absurd.  It makes you silly and absurd.  It 's no wonder people _laugh at you_ while they _laugh along with me_ .


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 30, 2019)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > _Kaku’s conclusion is pretty is clear._
> ...



Explanation? Mathematics and music is the same. In case of parallel universes for example only mathematics builds a bridge to this universes. If this is real then mathematics is perhaps an element of an over-universal power. The question is: Where is the song (where are the unknown natural laws), which we don't hear now?


----------



## james bond (Jan 30, 2019)

Now, Kaku is back to saying, "Universe was created."  I wish he make up his mind.

"Dr. Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist at the City College of New York (CUNY) and co-founder of String Field Theory, and he believes that theoretical particles known as “primitive semi-radius tachyons” are physical evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence. After analyzing the behavior of these sub-atomic particles – which can move faster than the speed of light and have the ability to “unstick” space and matter – using technology created in 2005, Kaku concluded that the universe is a “Matrix” governed by laws and principles that could only have been designed by an intelligent being. “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore. 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.”"

I can get behind his "Matrix" if he's saying the world is like a computer simulation.

Kaku Says Scientific Evidence Proves "The Universe was Created!" [VIDEO]


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery


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. You begin to realize that no matter how you falsify that statement they can come back and say, “No, no, no, the history books are wrong.” And, how do you falsify that? You cannot. So, there are certain statements that are not falsifiable.







Same thing with the existence of God. I don’t think there’s any one experiment that you can create to prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, it’s not a falsifiable statement. You cannot create an experiment that disproves the existence of God. Therefore, it’s a non-falsifiable statement.

Personally, I think there’s much wisdom in the God of Einstein. Einstein basically said that there are two types of gods. One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.

The universe is gorgeous. The universe is very simple, and it didn’t have to be that way. The universe could have been random. It could have been ugly. It could have been a random collection of electrons and photons. No life, no vitality, nothing interesting at all. Just a random collection of a mist of electrons and photons. That could have been the universe, but it isn’t. Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant. And you can summarize most of the laws of physics on one sheet of paper. Amazing. In fact, what I do for a living is to try to get that sheet of paper and summarize it into an equation one inch long. That’s called the unified field theory. We want to summarize all of the laws of physics into one equation that is one inch long.

Now, one version of that is called string field theory, which is a branch of string theory. String field theory allows you to write this equation, this one inch equation. In fact, that’s my equation. I’m a co-founder of string field theory. Now, that’s not the final theory because now there are membranes, and things are more complicated. We have yet to create a one inch equation for strings and membranes. But just for strings we already have a theory that’s only one inch long that allows you to summarize the laws of nature. So, that’s the God of Einstein. The God of beauty,[the idea] that says that the universe is simpler the more we study it.

If you’re an English major, you know that English literary criticism gets more complicated every year. Every time someone writes a PhD thesis on James Joyce or Hemingway, they say, “What did he really mean by that sentence?” Well, it gets more complicated every year! Physics is the opposite. It gets simpler and simpler every year. And ultimately we want to get it down to one inch.

There is a theory about whether or not the universe is a simulation of some sort, like the movie _The Matrix._ And then the question is how do you prove it? Or how do you disprove it?  Personally, I think it’s another non-falsifiable statement. Just like “Are you Cleopatra?” Just like “Is there a God?” “Is the universe a simulation?” is a non-falsifiable statement. That’s my true opinion. However, there is this website that quotes me saying otherwise. But that’s, I guess, one of the drawbacks of being in the public domain. People misquote you all the time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> Then how do you explain the Big Bang Theory?


Is your Google broken? The big bang theory only states that a rapid expansionary period took place. And all the evidence supports it. You can still point at it and say, "god did that!", if you like. Which you would swiftly do, were you not beholden to a story in the Bible.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
> 
> 
> Michio Kaku: There is a website that quoted me incorrectly....


Yes, I already posted and More succinctly excerpted the above article on PAGE 1 (#5), and it was quoted throughout.
You owe it to the board to do a little reading of the thread first..
Bye.
`


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

abu afak said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
> ...


I wasn't interested in reading a thread based on a lie - that would just be a waste of time and so I posted the direct notion of God from Michio himself to save everyone the hassle; which, according to you was already posted and folks are still bickering over a false thread conception. I think that means, at the very least, that reading this thread is confirmed a waste of time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
> 
> 
> 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.
> ...



He certainly is an odd individual sometimes.


His own theory - string theory - produces tens of thousands of parallel universes, each with its own laws of physics. So it seems rather odd to me that Kaku would point at the one we are in and say it shows him intelligent design ("because it's not just a mist of random photons",for instance), when his own pet theory predicts that several such "less beatiful" universes must also exist, and likely in greater numbers than the "orderly" (a completely arbitrary term derived from an egocentric construct) one we live in.

This is the sort of thing that leads to Kaku's name being quickly followed by eyerolls by much of the physics community.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
> ...


It's in the mis-quote that he posits a belief in intelligent design.

Not in his actual quote - his actual true opinion, as stated in the last paragraph, is that he & science cannot know either way because the notion is non-falsifiable. In science, non-falsifiability means that you shouldn't posit the claim in the 1st place.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> his actual true opinion, as stated in the last paragraph, is that he & science cannot know either way because the notion is non-falsifiable


And yet, still, he says:

"“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. "

And...

"“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.”

Even if he admits this is faith, he still believes it and uses the principle I mentioned to argue it. Which is odd, for the reasons I mentioned. Note that string theory still occupies this same niche....not coincidence...


----------



## Votto (Jan 30, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...



He said the "G" word!

Ban him from Facebook, ban him from Twitter!

The man and his children may as well go on unemployment for the rest of their lives!


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > his actual true opinion, as stated in the last paragraph, is that he & science cannot know either way because the notion is non-falsifiable
> ...


Where are those quotes from?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


From his CNS interview. And I don't think those quotes contradict anything you posted. I think he is delineating the difference between a personal belief and an evidence-based determination. Well, trying to after the fact, anyway. He seemed to blur those lines in his CNS interview, though. Let nobody accuse Kaku of not knowing how to work a crowd.


----------



## G.T. (Jan 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


So long as he doesn't try to blur the lines over what his science tells him and what his faith tells him - I guess it's no biggy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 30, 2019)

G.T. said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Agreed, but he was very clever to do so anyway in his CNS interview. Like I said, he knows how to work his audience....


----------



## Likkmee (Jan 30, 2019)

Oddball said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


True. Overall creator. Yeshua was his son that came and explained the rules.....so they killed him


----------



## james bond (Jan 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Is your Google broken? The big bang theory only states that a rapid expansionary period took place. And all the evidence supports it. You can still point at it and say, "god did that!", if you like. Which you would swiftly do, were you not beholden to a story in the Bible.



My source was Stephen Hawking and he's dead.  I hope he's rolling around in his grave knowing evidence of God from Kaku (sounds too hypothetical involving tachyons, strings and multiverses) and evidence of God's creation from spacetime.  You can have big bang theory and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.  What about the Hawking radiation?  I think classic physics stopped him in his tracks.  It's just as well.  Hawking was a genius, but his atheism made him go down the wrong path.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> knowing evidence of God from Kaku


Kaku presented no evidence. Sorry bond,I am simply not going to engage a dishonest charlatan like you. I will correct your false statements and mock you once in a while, but that's about it.


----------



## james bond (Jan 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > knowing evidence of God from Kaku
> ...



Yes, he did.  I was referring to abu afak 's 2017 article.  After that, I tried to get the evidence for myself and posted the later article where he discusses tachyons, strings and multiverses.  It's too theoretical for me, but at least he admitted there was evidence for God in his tachyons.

ETA:  Maybe you should see a doctor or take 7th grade again.  You are not able to keep up a simple thread.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


He passed along no evidence whatsoever. You are lying, and , to compound your dishonesty, you have zero understanding of any of these topics anyway.


----------



## james bond (Jan 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> He passed along no evidence whatsoever.








I already said his evidence was hypothetical.  At least, he can conclude the correct interpretation even though his evidence is hypothetical.  The only evidence you ever present is the gigantic hole in your head.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> I already said his evidence was hypothetical.


Haha, what is "hypothetical evidence"? You're just making shit up, now.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I already said his evidence was hypothetical.
> ...



"hypothetical evidence".

Ok, let me think about that ......


I thought about it. It's such nonsense. I wasted 0.3 seconds of my life thinking about it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 30, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Bond makes up shit as he goes. Hes practicing for an AM radio show, or something. He can't honestly believe for a second that he is actually fooling anyone here.


----------



## james bond (Jan 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I already said his evidence was hypothetical.
> ...



I already mentioned this earlier about Kaku.  He's a theoretical physicist, so he's dealing with tachyons which do not exist, multiverses which do not exist and strings which do not exist.  There is no evidence for any of it.  It could be pseudoscience.  That's why I called it hypothetical.  Yet, he ends up being correct if they show evidence of God.  OTOH, you deal with big bang, singularity and cosmic inflation which are theoretical to atheist scientists, but end up being wrong with no God.  Atheists are usually wrong.


----------



## james bond (Jan 31, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Ok, let me think about that ......



See my post #140.  Kaku deals with a lot of cosmology, but ends up getting it right if it shows evidence of God.  He doesn't really have any evidence, but if his subatomic particles exist, then he says it is evidence of God.  My evidence is simpler if you believe in the big bang theory.  You start with invisible particles (singularity), but they need space and time to exist and move around.  The creator had to create the space and time.  Some people believe the big bang caused it all, but you had to have some space and time that existed before that.  Basically, Stephen Hawking lied in order to make singularity work.  It's no wonder, he ended up getting stuck.


----------



## zaangalewa (Jan 31, 2019)

Neverending circle discussions seem to be the most popular discussions in the USA. The question, whether god exists or not - what's by the way for Christians a totally unimportant question - is in physics nearly the same question why anything is "here", incuding "the here" at all. If we could watch the universe from "outside" (there is no outside) then we see perhaps a "place" (whatever a place could be in this "dimension", which not exists, because there is no outside). But this "place" is a "place" without energy - as far as I understand what we know in physics in the current moment of world history about the physis of all possible interactions within our universe here since it is existing and as long as it will exist.
All energies ("the energy") of the universe seem to be 0 in total. So the question _"Do we exist?"_ is not the most stupid question. But if we do not exist - exists god? And why did he create us? Or did he not do so? If not - whoelse or whatelse created the universe, which seems not to exist from a point of view of a possible or impossible meta-reality?


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, let me think about that ......
> ...



You are insisting on conclusions with nothing more than "if this happens, it proves my partisan gods". 

Thats really nonsensical. Nothing in your "if" scenario would prove your gods as opposed to anyone else's gods. 

I can understand your desperate need to insist that certain events would "prove" your gods but you have a habit of stringing together various collections of unsupported statements and then presuming unsupported conclusions. 

It's mere delusion.


----------



## james bond (Jan 31, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Neverending circle discussions seem to be the most popular discussions in the USA.



Yes, there won't be a resolution for this as Kaku said.  There won't be the smoking gun, but my "Who created space and time?" is pretty good.  What the real issue is -- evolution ASSUMES there is no God.  No creator.  That's why their proponents, the secular (atheist) scientists are usually wrong.  All of the big bang, borderless or unbounded universe, multiverses (cosmology that overlaps with Kaku), Earth not being special, the Copernican Principle and more are the "wrong" thinking devised to explain what has happened naturally and without God or a creator.  It's hockey poo.


----------



## james bond (Jan 31, 2019)

Hollie said:


> It's mere delusion.



No, the Bible theory shows that Genesis came way before big bang.  The big bang is the preeminent theory which explains the origin of the universe today through nature, but how can it without space and time already existing?  You got sold a bill of goods with nothing behind it.  Else we could replicate it at LHC, but we can't have LHC without space and time.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It's mere delusion.
> ...



I think arguments are cheapened when folks negligently toss around terms such as “bible theory”.

What’s truly disturbing is the implied suggestion that we equate rather outlandish biblical tales and fables with terms such as _“scientific” and/or reality”_. Why would anyone substitute the scientific method for rumor and superstition? Nothing contained in the bibles provides us with proof of any god(s) let alone your sectarian version of god(s).

Let’s look at it another way. Science makes no claims to discoveries about the natural world or existence other than they are perceivable and fully natural. Consistently, science relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The theist, in this case, you, asserts that "logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of existence and instead must rely on the supernatural realms of gods.

Now I already conclude that logically-- science can only investigate the natural world as there are no mechanisms or tests to investigate your claimed supernatural realms. But what do you claim?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and limits our perception. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the theist, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napoleon (to use the cliché).

Do you spend periods of time commanding the French forces at Waterloo?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> No, the Bible theory shows that Genesis came way before big bang.


----------



## james bond (Jan 31, 2019)

Hollie said:


> I think arguments are cheapened when folks negligently toss around terms such as “bible theory”.



When I say Bible theory, it's creation science.  It should be taught in schools as it is not religion, but science.  It would be an alternative view to add to evolution which does not have a creator.  How could the universe or any life have started without God?  He created space and time and the rest of the universe.  Abiogenesis doesn't happen.  Only life begats life.  The latter is observable, testable and falsifiable.  The former has circumstantial evidence such as the Earth, sun and moon in being in just the right position.  Thus, it's a better theory than evolution which has these the Earth where it is by chance.  The evidence is there.


----------



## james bond (Jan 31, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > No, the Bible theory shows that Genesis came way before big bang.



I would not be laughing.  We got the LHC, but it hasn't shown anything close to resembling a big bang.  Besides, it takes space and time to have the LHC and run it.  It has not produced an universe yet .  But we did find a God particle.


----------



## james bond (Jan 31, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> And why did he create us?



God created us for his pleasure.  “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” Revelation 4:11.


----------



## james bond (Jan 31, 2019)

The other funny thing about the _other _theoretical physicist who's buried in the ground now and what he thought about the God particle.  What a joke.  For a smart guy, he sure was stupid.  He says Higgs boson can destroy the universe.

Stephen Hawking Says 'God Particle' Could Wipe Out the Universe


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > And why did he create us?
> ...



I guess you misinterpret here something. I'm not a toy of god  - no one is. Everywhere all around us exist existential problems, which cause a lot of sufferings. And you know - ¿or do you not know? - the main argument against the Christian religion. It's a paradox like the paradox of Atheists to deny that their belief in Atheism is not a spiritual belief.

This paradox is normally known under the expression "theodicee" (See: Leibniz). The atheistic "solution" of this paradox is normally to deny the existence of god. The most popular quote in this context is from Epicurus (When I heard this the first time I was very angry, because I was sure Epicurus was not able to think so. Indeed it's from the Christian philosopher Lacantius about 500 later, who used Epicurus for this message.)

---- The Epicurean paradox (from Lacantius):
_God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is enviuos, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?
-----
_
The only answer we found for this problem in the last 1700 years was _"We don't know!"_ In context with this very old tradition of all Christians in the world I am not able to understand how you are able to say god made human beings for his pleasure. That's an absurde idea about a god, who is a sadist or a liar. But god - our father - is not any liar. And to have to suffer is for sure not  for nothing. I'm sure we will find an answer for all this questions - if not today, then tomorrow. But I am also sure god suffers with everyone who suffers - as he showed to us in the death of Jesus the Christ. Sure god loves it to be happy with us - but he lets us never alone. He's always with us.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> ... the God particle ...



The full expression in this context is _"the God damned particle"_ [which was so diffcult to find].


----------



## Hollie (Feb 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I think arguments are cheapened when folks negligently toss around terms such as “bible theory”.
> ...



Why not be honest? When you say “creation science” you mean biblical literalism. To suggest that ID/creationism is not the same entity is just dishonest.

_Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision of the Court

[This is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science. He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations. This archive also hosts transcripts of the trial. See the Dover index page.]_

The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "*The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model*." The earlier attempts by Christian fundamentalists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.


Here's a list of ten cases where you ID/creationists (fundie Christians), have suffered humiliating losses in their attempts to force your dogma upon the public schools.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism NCSE


----------



## james bond (Feb 1, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> I guess you misinterpret here something. I'm not a toy of god - no one is.



I am not misinterpreting anything.  Why would God need a _toy_ for his pleasure?  How dumb is that?  He is not a child.  He is not an adult human.  He is God.

You are God's creation.  You are here for his pleasure.  What is pleasure to God is to not sin, i.e. be holy, but we are not perfect so we are sinners regardless.  Thus, he wants you to believe in Jesus as the Savior who sacrificed himself with his body and blood.  This leads to cleansing.  Only through Jesus can one be saved.  Can you do that?

Almost all atheists cannot do that because they violate the first commandment and sin even more.  They do not have faith and believe in God.  Thus, he does not reveal himself and they live a life of no God.  Even their science states there is no God systematically.  A terrible assumption.  One that spells doom for all.  For that they will be punished.  There is no pleasure to God with a life of sin.

The science of God is in the Bible.  If one can believe that, then they will learn about creation science.  From there, one can reach God, but it takes faith upon the person.  Not the other way around.  It _never_ works the other way around.  For that, there is only pain and suffering.

I do not mean to inject religion in a science forum, aside from Bible theory or God theory, but there is no other explanation.


----------



## james bond (Feb 1, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Why not be honest? When you say “creation science” you mean biblical literalism.



It is not ID.  How many times do I have to repeat it?  There is intelligence behind God's design, but there is God first.  The Bible theory explains what happened because God is the witness.  The only supernatural part is all of Genesis.  We can only provide evidence for what happened such as one requires space and time to exist first before anything else.  The rest is observable, testable and falsifiable science from the Bible.  There is no historical science such as evolution.  There is no circumstatial evidence with nothing else such as abiogenesis.  It's real science compared to the BS that you believe just because it's in museums and science text books.  It's fake science that you believe in.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 1, 2019)

There is no such thing as creation science. There are no creation scientists, and there is nobody producing creation science.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Why not be honest? When you say “creation science” you mean biblical literalism.
> ...



It's odd that you insist you're not an ID'ist yet you insist "there is intelligence behind God's design". That's kinda' the definition of an ID / creationist.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you misinterpret here something. I'm not a toy of god - no one is.
> ...



If you think so. It's for me personally not any problem if you think god created you for his pleasure. I just simple don't see any sense in such a point of view. By the way: Why destroyed your president the shield NATO?


----------



## james bond (Feb 2, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...



Your brain has become discombobulated.  Now you are discussing BOTH religion and politics in a science forum.  You really should get out more.


----------



## james bond (Feb 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> There is no such thing as creation science. There are no creation scientists, and there is nobody producing creation science.



Wrong once again.  Atheists are usually wrong!

What we see in this thread is Michio Kaku has formulated the God theory.  Being a theoretical physicist, he formulated tachyons, multiverses and strings to show that we can have a God theory.  However, creation science and secular science before the 1850s already had it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> What we see in this thread is Michio Kaku has formulated the God theory.


No he hasn't. Damn you say the stupidest shit. He formulated amd presented no scientific theory.  In fact, he very intentionally and specifically said exactly the opposite, when he spoke of it not being a scientific idea. You are easily one of the most dishonest little pricks i have ever run across.


----------



## james bond (Feb 2, 2019)

We see that secular or atheist science of today has eliminated the "best" theory of God theory.  It's no wonder today's science has gone so far off the track like big bang, billions of year old universe and Earth, global warming/climate change, aliens, abiogenesis and more..  There is no need to believe in evolution as it is not practical.  Maybe to pass that 7th grade test.  Otherwise, there is no practical use.


----------



## james bond (Feb 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > What we see in this thread is Michio Kaku has formulated the God theory.
> ...



It's all in the link I posted from Jan 2018.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


No it isn't. That's another shameless lie.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> We see that secular or atheist science of today has eliminated the "best" theory of God theory.  It's no wonder today's science has gone so far off the track like big bang, billions of year old universe and Earth, global warming/climate change, aliens, abiogenesis and more..  There is no need to believe in evolution as it is not practical.  Maybe to pass that 7th grade test.  Otherwise, there is no practical use.



I think we see that science has moved us away from fear and superstition, at least some of us,


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



My brain is totally unimportant. What's important are my  experiences. And I fear you would be dead more than only one time if you had to make my experiences, Mr. Impertinence.



> Now you are discussing BOTH religion and politics in a science forum.



I do not discuss themes like "science vs religion" or the much more stupid theme "creation vs evolution". If you try to understand what I said here then you will know why.



> You really should get out more.



Tell me why the USA likes not to be shielded any longer from the Atlantic side.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 2, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > We see that secular or atheist science of today has eliminated the "best" theory of God theory.  It's no wonder today's science has gone so far off the track like big bang, billions of year old universe and Earth, global warming/climate change, aliens, abiogenesis and more..  There is no need to believe in evolution as it is not practical.  Maybe to pass that 7th grade test.  Otherwise, there is no practical use.
> ...



_There ambassadors came to him from Syrmus, king of the Triballians, and from the other independent nations dwelling near the Ister. Some even arrived from the Celts who dwelt near the Ionian gulf. These people are of great stature, and of a haughty disposition. All the envoys said that they had come to seek Alexander’s friendship. To all of them he gave pledges of amity, and received pledges from them in return. He then asked the Celts what thing in the world caused them special alarm, expecting that his own great fame had reached the Celts and had penetrated still further, and that they would say that they feared him most of all things. But the answer of the Celts turned out quite contrary to his expectation; for, as they dwelt so far away from Alexander, inhabiting districts difficult of access, and as they saw he was about to set out in another direction, they said they were afraid that the sky would some time or other fall down upon them._
*Lucius Flavius Arrianus Xenophon
*
By the way: Alexander the great was a great drunkard. And everyone who tries to go in his footsteps is only an idiot - as he was on his own a murderous asshole and an idiot too. The genius in his time of history was his teacher Aristotle, who is also one of the most important Catholics, who ever had existed. Without Aristotle (including his interpreter Averroës (Ibn Rushd)) and the Holy Catholic Church would not exist any modern university today.



An die Freude / Ode to Joy by Friedrich Schiller translated by William F. Wertz

_Joy, thou beauteous godly lightning,
Daughter of Elysium,
Fire drunken we are ent’ring
Heavenly, thy holy home!
Thy enchantments bind together,
What did custom stern divide,
Every man becomes a brother,
Where thy gentle wings abide.

Chorus:
Be embrac’d, ye millions yonder!
Take this kiss throughout the world!
Brothers—o’er the stars unfurl’d
Must reside a loving Father.

Who the noble prize achieveth,
Good friend of a friend to be;
Who a lovely wife attaineth,
Join us in his jubilee!
Yes—he too who but one being
On this earth can call his own!
He who ne’er was able, weeping
Stealeth from this league alone!

Chorus:
He who in the great ring dwelleth,
Homage pays to sympathy!
To the stars above leads she,
Where on high the Unknown reigneth.

Joy is drunk by every being
From kind nature’s flowing breasts,
Every evil, every good thing
For her rosy footprint quests.
Gave she us both vines and kisses,
In the face of death a friend,
To the worm were given blisses
And the Cherubs God attend.

Chorus:
Fall before him, all ye millions?_
_Know’st__ thou the Creator, world?
Seek above the stars unfurl’d,
Yonder dwells He in the heavens.

Joy commands the hardy mainspring
Of the universe eterne.
Joy, oh joy the wheel is driving
Which the worlds’ great clock doth turn.
Flowers from the buds she coaxes,
Suns from out the hyaline,
Spheres she rotates through expanses,
Which the seer can’t divine.

Chorus:
As the suns are flying, happy
Through the heaven’s glorious plane,
Travel, brothers, down your lane,
Joyful as in hero’s vict’ry.

From the truth’s own fiery mirror
On the searcher doth she smile.
Up the steep incline of honor
Guideth she the suff’rer’s mile.
High upon faith’s sunlit mountains
One can see her banner flies,
Through the breach of open’d coffins_
She_ in angel’s choir doth rise.

Chorus:
Suffer on courageous millions!
Suffer for a better world!
O’er the tent of stars unfurl’d
God rewards you from the heavens.

Gods can never be requited,
Beauteous ’tis, their like to be.
Grief and want shall be reported,
So to cheer with gaiety.
Hate and vengeance be forgotten,
Pardon’d be our mortal foe,
Not a teardrop shall him dampen,
No repentance bring him low.

Chorus:
Let our book of debts be cancell’d!
Reconcile the total world!
Brothers—o’er the stars unfurl’d
God doth judge, as we have settl’d.
_
Joy_ doth bubble from this rummer,
From the golden blood of grape
Cannibals imbibe good temper,
Weak of heart their courage take—
Brothers, fly up from thy places,
When the brimming cup doth pass,
Let the foam shoot up in spaces:
To the goodly Soul this glass!

Chorus:
Whom the crown of stars doth honor,
Whom the hymns of Seraphs bless,
To the goodly Soul this glass
O’er the tent of stars up yonder!

Courage firm in grievous trial,
Help, where innocence doth scream,
Oaths which sworn to are eternal,
Truth to friend and foe the same,
Manly pride ’fore kingly power—
Brothers, cost it life and blood,—
Honor to whom merits honor,
Ruin to the lying brood!

Chorus:
Closer draw the holy circle,
Swear it by this golden wine,
Faithful to the vow divine,
Swear it by the Judge celestial!

Rescue from the tyrant’s fetters,
Mercy to the villain e’en,
Hope within the dying hours,
Pardon at the guillotine!
E’en the dead shall live in heaven!
Brothers, drink and all agree,
Every sin shall be forgiven,
Hell forever cease to be.

Chorus:
A serene departing hour!
Pleasant sleep beneath the pall!
Brothers—gentle words for all
Doth the Judge of mortals utter_


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 2, 2019)

abu afak

You forgot to call  my post "funny", which got here the number 160. No energy any longer for your very complex -statements?


----------



## james bond (Feb 3, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> My brain is totally unimportant. What's important are my experiences. And I fear you would be dead more than only one time if you had to make my experiences, Mr. Impertinence.



Your experiences shaped your worldview, but have you thought that maybe you were misled or lied to?  I mean I'm doing my darnest to convince you, but it seems you keep missing the point or staying with your current worldview.  I think Kaku's thinking led him to change his worldview even though we still can't prove God one way or another.



zaangalewa said:


> I do not discuss themes like "science vs religion" or the much more stupid theme "creation vs evolution". If you try to understand what I said here then you will know why.



Nothing stupid about science vs religion nor creation vs evolution.  All are worldviews.  You contradict yourself.  First you refer to your experiences which means your worldview, but then say the above are stupid themes.  They're not themes, but worldviews haha.


----------



## james bond (Feb 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



I didn't write the article, so you continue to be wrong and your entire argument is ad hominem attacks.  You don't have to accept his God theory.  Other links say that he "proved" the existence of God, but we know there are no "proofs" in science.

What does he say here?  We know what Tyson is going to say.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > My brain is totally unimportant. What's important are my experiences. And I fear you would be dead more than only one time if you had to make my experiences, Mr. Impertinence.
> ...



Nonsense. The various disciplines of science are not “worldviews”, they are explorations of the natural world through evidence and examination of the processes within the scientific method. 

Faith doesn’t claim evidence and it *can not* claim evidence. That's because faith isn't a tool-- it is a conclusion. Faith by definition is not a path to knowledge -- else, if the item is known, it no longer needs faith. If one can be said to "know there is a god" -- then of what need is there for faith?

Since _reason_ won't suffice to support an irrational claim (i.e., supernatural beings being _real_, not fictional), one is forced into creating a "new method" by which one supports one's claims. Enter faith, theistically defined as the substance of things "hoped for"; the evidence of things not seen. I "hope for" a number of things-- but "hoping" is not enough-- there has to be evidence, and not evidence that is "not seen".


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > My brain is totally unimportant. What's important are my experiences. And I fear you would be dead more than only one time if you had to make my experiences, Mr. Impertinence.
> ...



No. You don't have any idea about me - that's what I expressed. And you will never be able to understand me, because you are not able to survive what I survived.



> but have you thought that maybe you were misled or lied to?



I did not vote for Trump.



> I mean I'm doing my darnest to convince you,



From what? Why?



> but it seems you keep missing the point or staying with your current worldview.  I think Kaku's thinking led him to change his worldview even though we still can't prove God one way or another.



Gödel proved god - no one disproved Gödel.



> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > I do not discuss themes like "science vs religion" or the much more stupid theme "creation vs evolution". If you try to understand what I said here then you will know why.
> ...



Totally superflous never ending stupid discussions of the English speaking world.



> All are worldviews.



?



> You contradict yourself.  First you refer to your experiences which means your worldview, but then say the above are stupid themes.  They're not themes, but worldviews haha.



Strange.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 3, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> abu afak
> 
> You forgot to call  my post "funny", which got here the number 160. No energy any longer for your very complex -statements?



Perhaps you are right, abu afak. It makes in the English speaking world really not a big sense to try to speak with anyone. You (=The English speaking world) are a culture, which lost the ability to communicate with each other.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 3, 2019)

abu afak


----------



## james bond (Feb 4, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Nonsense. The various disciplines of science are not “worldviews”, they are explorations of the natural world through evidence and examination of the processes within the scientific method.



They're worldviews because it's atheist science or fake science.  They made wrong assumptions, used evidence to fit their theory and eliminated their competition.  The Earth isn't 4.6 B years old nor the universe 13.7 B years old.  Besides, the ages keep getting longer.  I can't wait for the James Webb telescope to discover more untruths of the atheist scientists.


----------



## james bond (Feb 4, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Gödel proved god



Yup and the computer was used to do the math.  I like this argument from contingency:


If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Nonsense. The various disciplines of science are not “worldviews”, they are explorations of the natural world through evidence and examination of the processes within the scientific method.
> ...



Your slogans are right out of the biblical literalist / YEC'ist handbook. I'm delighted to inform you that biological organisms evolve, we do, in fact, live in a heliocentric planetary system and the earth is in fact, Not Flat.

Are the charlatans at AIG supposed to be the end result of biblical literalism? In that, there should be _no question_ as to the authenticity of the Bible, its provenance, its authorship-- it should supernaturally resist every attempt to change it. It should be immune to any and all tampering, It should gel not only with itself, but with the greater reality which is replete with evidence. If early humans could understand a "global flood" and parting of the Seas, then they could also understand a heliocentric solar system and the fact that stars are far away and life on earth has evolved for billions of years.

Yet the bibles _purposely_ outline a creation that flies in the face of the evidence. Which is not surprising since, as a man-made book which is limited to the knowledge of the men who wrote it, it displays precisely the level of knowledge that would be available to the people in whose time it was written.

Other than the miracles, and some philosophical ideas (which were not wholly unique; for instance, Confucius coined the Golden Rule 500 years before Jesus allegedly did so), there's absolutely nothing unique in the Bibles. It's just got a lot of conflicting fables to it because it was written by many different people over many hundreds of years.


----------



## james bond (Feb 4, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I said nothing of the kind.  You must mix it up with the things that run inside your cuckoo brain.

On the first day, God created the space, time, universe, earth, and the EMS or light.  That explains how space and time came into being while you cannot explain how space and time came into existence due to invisible particles.  Thus, it sounds like you and the atheists are in the flat earth club.  Besides, Copernicus was a Christian and believed in creation when he came up with heliocentricity.  He challenged Pope Gregory and the bishops of what they were teaching.  It's like today's creation scientists challenge the powers that be in secular or atheist science.  God also explains how the universe and everything in it came to exist today.

Your science went wrong the very first microsecond of invisible particles.  You cannot explain, so all you do is complain.  That gets tiring and boring very fast, so just put your tail between your legs and go back to the drawing board.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



You can hurl all the conspiracy theories you have been indoctrinated with by the fundamentalist ministries but to insist the planet is 6,000 years old and a literal rendering of the genesis fable is true, well, that's really concerning.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 5, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...







Dr. Hawking, who also *admits the mathematical improbability of our universe:*
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, *except as the act of a God* who intended to create beings like us."

"In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, *the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense."*

"Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size."

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life ..." 
Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking


----------



## james bond (Feb 5, 2019)

Hollie said:


> You can hurl all the conspiracy theories you have been indoctrinated with by the fundamentalist ministries but to insist the planet is 6,000 years old and a literal rendering of the genesis fable is true, well, that's really concerning.



Not indoctrination, but just what I read and compared after reading and believing in evolution -- evolution.berkeley.edu.  I notice you do not answer my questions because you do not have the answers.  Just "beliefs" in things that secular scientists made up.  You believe in natural philosophy which is essentially BS because it's not observational, testable nor falsifiable.  It's part of your worldview.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 5, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...






Forgive me if someone has already noted the Harper's article:


1. " …according to various calculations, *if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.*

2. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. *No hydrogen means no water. *
Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.

4. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.

5. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then *the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.*

6. *The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. T*he recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word _anthropic_, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.*No life of any kind would exist."*
The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine


 " …the great question, of course, is _why_ these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God. For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.”



Miracle .....or coincidence?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 5, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > _Kaku’s conclusion is pretty is clear._
> ...


Ugh...you lying little charlatan....

Those quotes are mined and taken completely out of context.  Here is a brief explanation for those who wish to know the facts and want to understand how a charlatan like politicalchic operates:
The Language of God: Quantum Quote-Mining


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...




The link was provided in my post.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You can hurl all the conspiracy theories you have been indoctrinated with by the fundamentalist ministries but to insist the planet is 6,000 years old and a literal rendering of the genesis fable is true, well, that's really concerning.
> ...



I notice you tend to throw nonsensical claims such as “you do not answer my questions” when your questions are addressed and the charlatans at the fundamentalist ministries leave you without a response.

literal creationism making the claim that the earth was created in 6 days about 6000-10000 years ago is nonsense. This hypothesis is easily disproven by many observations. It is inconsistent with the fossil record. We can see light from galaxies millions of light years away, which would be impossible if the cosmos were only 10,000 years old. So, this notion is easily disposed of. It is false. Creationism also fails the predictability and falsifiability tests. On these bases alone, creationism or YEC (young earth creationism) as it is called, is definitively been proven to be false. There is no sense in pursuing that nonsense any further.

The answer to the fundamentalist hacks is to allow the supporters of ID'iot creationism to publish a peer reviewed paper, and to examine it thoroughly. As you know, they won't. They know full well that these examinations will prove it as bothr false and useless from a scientific point of view.
It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is _not_ required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer. If you or any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. Intelligent Design advocates are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 5, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > _Kaku’s conclusion is pretty is clear._
> ...



All your usual cut and paste "quote mining", so much of it dishonestly edited and parsed.

It's always funny when the ID'iot creationists / Flat Earth loons try to press the finely tuned universe nonsense.

It is simply laughable to press the finely tuned universe, nonsense The illusion of order is primarily an artifact of scale. We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale. This (luckily for us) means most of us expend our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment. 

We have already established that “complexity” is more a function of your limited imagination than a barrier to possibility.


----------



## james bond (Feb 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Here is a brief explanation for those who wish to know the facts and want to understand how a charlatan like politicalchic operates:
> The Language of God: Quantum Quote-Mining



Your link is from some dumb atheist blog that has nothing to do with the article.  You can't even explain what the blog said in your own words.  The Harper's article is from a physicist and novelist who teaches at MIT.  Soooooooo, that's some weak, weak, weak sauce you charlatan.  When it comes to quote mining, you just did it.  Pasted a link that you didn't even read.  You do that to me and others practically all the time and never answer my questions like when I informed you about the fine tuning facts.  Quote miing is from the atheist playbook.  

OTOH, you saw the WLC video on it.  We also know this is fact because there are no aliens.  Not even one microbe has been found.  Yet, NASA wants to spend millions to go to Mars when there is really no need to; We can't colonize it.  All they want to do is find a microbe or evidence of past life.  Instead, they may end up getting the astronauts killed because of the fine tuning facts, solar wind and lack of magnetic field protection.  Real science already knows there is no life there because of its harsh environment.  You believe in some weird stuff.


----------



## james bond (Feb 5, 2019)

Hollie said:


> It's always funny when the ID'iot creationists / Flat Earth loons try to press the finely tuned universe nonsense.



Haha.  You do not even know what you are talking about.  The fine tuning facts were discovered by the secular scientists investigating the big bang theory.  They don't mention it because it goes against their evolutionary thinking.  It's you who is the flat earth looney tunes cartoon.


----------



## james bond (Feb 6, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Your derogatory answer to the question is wrong because you assume the universe is standing still..  Atheist and their scientific explanations are usually wrong.  In order to answer how the light of stars billions of light years away from the earth have reached us when Earth is only thousands of years old is gravitational time dilation.  It follows Einstein's general theory of relativity.  Light from stars billions of light years away are slowed by gravity wells all throughout space.  Space is not just empty but composed of ether and is infinitely elastic.  The huge mass of planets, stars and what's out in space form these gravity wells so that light has to pass through these wells and is slowed.  Also, we are seeing light from the past and in the past the universe was much denser.  All of this causes the effect of seeing the light from "billions of years" away when we've only been here for thousands of years. 

Another way to look at it is it's like traveling in a time machine if you can travel near the speed of light for one year away from Earth.  When you come back to Earth, we will have aged much more than you who would have aged only two years.  You would think that you traveled into the future.  The gravitation time dilation is the opposite effect as light is traveling towards us.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 6, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



When you get your science lessons from ID/creationist hacks at AIG, you will, of course, reach some rather odd conclusions about the natural world.

Why don’t you point us toward the relevant studies performed by AIG and the data they submitted for peer review.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 6, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It's always funny when the ID'iot creationists / Flat Earth loons try to press the finely tuned universe nonsense.
> ...



Your conspiracy theories are entertaining but as conspiracy theories go, absent verification. 

How do you explain the “fine tuning” by the gods when the universe is actually a quite violent and disorderly place?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 6, 2019)

james bond said:


> Your link is from some dumb atheist blog that has nothing to do with the article


Actually, you shameless little liar,the link I provided provides the original context to the mined quotes showing quite clearly that they were intentionally taken out of context in order to mtisrepresent them

Which you did not know, because you did not actually really a single word of the link i provided. Yet you commented on it anyway, because you are a lying little weasel.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...





Well, then, fool....you should be able to find a way to show that he did not say "In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, *the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense."



Waiting.*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 6, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Of course, the context matters. Not that you know it or care. But those who want to understand will read the link i I provided. You won't, and you will keep on regurgitating mined quotes from lyong bloggers.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...





So where is the context that obviates the quote?


Put your foot in your mouth again, huh, dunce?



"In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, *the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense."*
*
He said it, and he meant exactly that.

*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 6, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> So where is the context that obviates the quote?


For the third time, in the link I provided. As I said, those interested in understanding how lying charlatans like you operate will read it. Those who don't, won't.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > So where is the context that obviates the quote?
> ...





I caught you lying again, huh?

State your proof that the line is not his, and is out of context.


You're simply lying......low-life.

"In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, *the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense."*
*
He said it, and he meant exactly that.*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 6, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> State your proof that the line is not his, and is out of context.


I didn't say it wasn't his. I said it was mined out of context in order to misrepresentat his thoughts and intentions. And the proof is in the link. I really do not care if you believe me or not. You are a lying charlatan.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > State your proof that the line is not his, and is out of context.
> ...





Prove it, liar.


"In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, *the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense."*
*
He said it, and he meant exactly that.*


*
For actual context, read Physicist Alan Lightman's article in Harper's where he shows how improbable the exact conditions for life actually are:


The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720

*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 6, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Nah, I'm good with posting the link. Have a nice night, charlatan.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...





You're good with being known as a lying low-life.

You couldn't change it anyway......I'm never wrong.


----------



## james bond (Feb 6, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Since you do have a rebuttal for my post, I'll assume you are wrong, wrong, wrong.  What I described is observable science.  Even Stephen Hawking in A Briefer History of Time though he could travel back in time.  However, this is impossible, so Hawking is wrong again.

Moreover, you're getting booooring as ID and creation science are not the same.  Separate camps entirely.

No peer review because atheist science has systematically eliminated creation scientists.  Otherwise, they would be glad to participate in the peer reviews.  Each camp does their own now.  For example, Earth is though to be in the center of a bounded universe.  For a boundless universe, as atheist science claims, there would be no center.  That has been peer reviewed by each camp, but not each other.


----------



## Votto (Feb 6, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...



Obama has a message to give to God.


----------



## james bond (Feb 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Your link is from some dumb atheist blog that has nothing to do with the article
> ...



What benefit would I get by lying about creation science?  Lying is sinful.  Yet, you get evolutionary benefits by lying about evolution, ToE and evolutionary thinking and history.  Satan rewards lying.  How can I make this be more scientific.  It's part of Bible science theory .


----------



## badger2 (Feb 6, 2019)

'Khristianstvo okazyvaetsia  vpolne umestnym, kogda my zadaemsia fundamental'nymi voprosami: pochemu sushchestvuet mir? 
Christianity turns out to be quite appropriate when we ask fundamental questions: why is there a world?

Pochemu v nem imenno etot poriadok?
Why is there order in it?'
(Markova A, Nauka i Religiia: problemy granitsy [Science and Religion: Problems, Boundaries, 2000])

Two exemplary reasons underlying the xian problematic is the Bergsonian Triplicity of Flux, whereby perception must be contained in one's own time (the perceiver's time, Schrodinger's problematic), and that as humans, it is difficult to imagine non-being, which is a fundamental illusion of man (the illusion of not being dead once we already are) exploited by theology.

There was order with the first amino acids of life that were formed at the mouth of a volcano, precursor to the genetic code.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 6, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Actually, you’re wrong about most of the things you cut and paste because you don’t understand what you’re cutting and pasting.

The laws of probability, properly understood and applied, provide no objection to evolution or to the existence of a universe absent many gods.

In all discussions of "chance", one must remember that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if _it can be shown_ that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

Let’s apply this to the so-called fine tuning argument which is often cited as the proof for Gods. So many parameters in the universe seemed to be so finely tuned just so that life can flourish and evolve, which would not have been possible had any of those parameters been slightly different. This argument is also scientifically flawed. The fact is that such finetuning is viewed as having a supernatural (i.e beyond physics) implication is due to (a) improper understanding of statistics (b) relying on our intuitive notion of causality from day to day experience and extending it to the extreme. To illustrate (a) for example, if we roll ten dice the likelihood of getting the sequence 6526553214 is the same as the sequence 6666666666, both of which are equally likely and are also each very unlikely to occur in one trial 1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6).

Hey, here’s a fun fact; of the 10,000 gods invented by humans (your gods being the more recent inventions of gods), that would suggest that your gods have only a 3 in 10,000 chance of being the “real” gods.

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is _not_ required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer. If you or any ID’iot / Flat Earthers have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. ID’iot / Flat Earthers are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 6, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



There is no such thing as "bible science theory". 

Christian fundamentalism under the burqa of a phony label called "creation science" is not science at all. It's willful ignorance.

But not willful ignorance to ID'iot / Flat Earthers. They will sidestep the entire problem of their supernaturalism and gods and fat, naked babies playing harps by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that the gods made the stars, galaxies and _intervening space *and* light from said stars and galaxies_, in there present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to *mislead* scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 6, 2019)

Votto said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > _Kaku’s conclusion is pretty is clear._
> ...


Well then, he's right.


----------



## james bond (Feb 7, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Actually, you’re wrong about most of the things you cut and paste because you don’t understand what you’re cutting and pasting.



Most of my posts aren't cut and paste.  It's you who do not understand.  For example, you cannot distinguish between IDers and creationists despite how many times people tell you.

If I am wrong, then you should be able to refute it, but you can't.  This is because you are wrong.  Also, you're not very good at explaining how distant starlight is affected by gravity and traveling through ether.  You asked a question and I was able to explain it.  Otherwise, what is your explanation?  That's what most people with half-a-brain are able to do.

You mention the laws of probability, but that's for things that happen in the future.  It has no application to what happened in the past for evolution.  Chance is the percentages or odds of something happening and we can use calculations from it.  That also applies to future events such as betting on the outcome of a sports event.

Fine tuning isn't "proof" of gods.  Science does not deal with proofs.  All fine tuning argues is that life is rare because the conditions for life to exist falls within a very limited range.  Even our universe would expand too rapidly or collapse upon itself if some of the parameters aren't in a narrow range.  Those aren't just coincidences.  It would take very many tries by a computer simulation to get things just so.  It could take millions of years and still not come up in the narrow range.  These simulations would give you statistics to show that something like the big bang could not have happened.

As for the rest, it shows you do not know what you are talking about and that's why I say I am wasting my time with you.  I just explained how to estimate something happening in the future using probability.  Then I took the probability and have a computer do simulations with it in order to generate statistics that would show how long it would take to meet all that is needed in the fine tuning criteria.  These statistics will not be finely tuned as the computer does billions and billions of trials and they still would not fall within the finely tuned range.  Thus, the big bang probably did not happen in the past.  Thus, I can say with almost absolute certainty that life does not exist on Mars.  Not even one microbe.


----------



## james bond (Feb 7, 2019)

Hollie said:


> There is no such thing as "bible science theory".



Sure there is.  You did not learn it in school because Bible science is not allowed.  Just like it's not allowed in science when it was before the 1850s.


----------



## james bond (Feb 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



If God dropped a large boulder on Obama and he became flat as a pancake, then that would be something to behold.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Gödel proved god
> ...



No. Gödel used a form of logic which is not very popular. So nearly no one - I guess in the moment indeed no one - is able to understand intuitively what he did. A short time ago some computer scienists showed that the used logic of Gödel and his use of this logic is indeed correct. What doesn't mean it is reality what he spoke about. Mathematics is not bound on reality.



> I like this argument from contingency:
> 
> 
> If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
> ...



If the universe has in total an energy which is zero then it is not existing independent from space and time, because something what's without energy is not able to do something. But on the other side everything what's existing within the universe here has a history which started from the very first moment of the universe, when it appeared scientifically without any cause. You are using here empty formulas, which you learned once. They are empty, because you do not know what it means.

Whatever. I do not understand the people in the English speaking world who hate science, because the logos of science comes from god - and I do not understand the people in the English speaking world, who hate religion, because to be religious means to be rebound in god.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such thing as "bible science theory".
> ...



Sorry, there is no such thing as bible science. That is just a nonsense term invented by fundamentalists in an attempt to give credibility to tales and fables.

Science doesn’t support supernaturalism. Supernaturalism isn’t a field of science.

Here's a simple test for your bible science: 
Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1850's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to “believe”, rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 7, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Statistically says the logic of time: Before 1915 it was more deadly to visit a doctor - after 1915 it was less deadly to visit a doctor.



> Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently?



If you like to compare the efficiency of the medical method "prayer" - what's from a Christian point of view nonsense - you had to compare appendectomy with and without prayer. By the way: Who suffers more appendicitis? Beliefers in god or believers in atheism?



> Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died,



This depends now on other statistical methods. But for me it's difficult to express this in the foreign language English. Indeed it's possible that in a special case it's better to pray instead to do an appendectomy. No one is able to know this. Take vaccinations as a better example fro this problem. Although this is a very senseful and important medical method one is able to die on reason of a vaccination too. It's better for a complete population - but not automatically better for every single human being.



> and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.



What's by the way totally wrong in case of the pestilences which terrorized Europe. In Hamburg for example died in 1350 50% of the population because of a pestilence. In another time died even 97%, I heard. And this had happened everywhere in Europe for a long time of history. The people In Europe fought against pestilences without being able to know what are the reasons for and what are the best methods against the pestilences. But they won. For example made lots of villages and cities here in Germany promises to god - sometimes for hundreds of years - if god helps against the pestilences. Lots fulfill this promises still today - for example the people of Oberammergau. Indeed the pestilences died out (for sure with the help of the believers in god) a long time before medical science was able to help.


----------



## james bond (Feb 7, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Again, you do not answer my questions, but expect me to waste my time answering yours.  It confirms that you lack the brain power and knowledge to do so.  I am wasting my time.

And once more you do not understand science.  Science is open to all possibilities and hypotheses.  One is the start of space and time was done by a supernatural creator.  It isn't something that is natural, i.e. the cause of the beginning, because it would require a timeless and spaceless being.  We do not have that in our natural world.  Thus, your statements are wrong once more.

I think we are done because of your lack of answers.  All you do is make false claims.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



While you insist that your creator gods are the cause for existence, you provide no support other than the usual “.... because I say so” commands.

That’s to be expected from the ID community but the charlatans at AIG and the other fundamentalist ministries are notorious for fraud and incompetence. While science is open to hypothesis, magic and supernaturalism is not a rational hypothesis thus making claims to absurdities does not form the basis of a rational hypothesis.

The inability of ID creationists to supply even the most basic framework of a working model for their claims to creator gods doesn’t give anyone confidence that their magical spirit realms are anything but utterly unsupported dogma.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 8, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Christians never believed in gods, that's why the early Christians  - who saw themselves also often in the tradition of the ancient Greek "atheistic" philosoperhs, who had lived before Christ - were called once "atheists" too. Lots of Christians were murdered because of their "atheism". We call them martyrs.



> are the cause for existence,



That's nearly what we Christians believe: God made all and every existence. He made the "first cause" (a first cause is without cause) where everything was inside what we are able to see and also what's invisible for us. But also today exist "first causes" - start things to exist and we are without any good idea how this is able to happen. Sometimes we call it "chaos", sometimes "accident" or "chance", ...



> you provide no support other than the usual “.... because I say so” commands.
> 
> That’s to be expected from the ID community but the charlatans at AIG and the other fundamentalist ministries are notorious for fraud and incompetence.



?



> While science is open to hypothesis, magic and supernaturalism is not a rational hypothesis



A point in mathematics - the ancient Greeks defined it as something what has no parts -  is super-natural. Nowhere all around you will find a point in the nature. But without the super-natural (meta-physical) concept of points in mathematics you are not able to say a lot in physics (=natural philosophy) about the physis (=all energetic and/or material structures) of the world.



> thus making claims to absurdities does not form the basis of a rational hypothesis.



God is word (=logos=rationality)



> The inability of ID creationists to supply even the most basic framework of a working model for their claims to creator gods



The creator speaks of himselve sometimes in plural forms - but this makes the creator not to gods.



> doesn’t give anyone confidence that their magical spirit realms are anything but utterly unsupported dogma.



Science is full of "dogmas" = doctrines and paradigmas. One paradigma of science is for example "It exists only one truth" what means in case of natural science: If a chemist and a biologist find something what's true in chemistry but wrong in biology or true in biology but wrong in chemistry then this is not possible. Augustinus said by the way about 1700 years ago that wonders are not supernatural. Wonders are only not explainable with our current knowledge, which we have about the nature all around. So you don't have to believe in a super-nature, if you see the magic when someone switches on the light in whatever part of the electromagnetical spectrum. Nevertheless it's a wonder, isn't it? Electromagnetism is an astonishing wonderous structure. It helps for example a telepath like you to read the thoughts of other people. Aber es ist nicht nur der Elektromagnetismus, der Dir hilft zu lesen und zu verstehen was auf dem Bildschirm steht.  (But it is not only the electrogmagnetism, which helps you to read and to understand what is written on your screen.)


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 8, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> A point in mathematics - the ancient Greeks defined it as something what has no parts - is super-natural. Nowhere all around you will find a point in the nature. But without the super-natural (meta-physical) concept of points in mathematics you are not able to say a lot in physics (=natural philosophy) about the physis (=all energetic and/or material structures) of the world.


But you will still only end up with approximations. No, math is not "supernatural".


----------



## james bond (Feb 8, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Wrong again.  I talked about the creation of space and time while you could not explain how space and time started.  Even Hawking was stumped until his death.  He admitted quantum particles need space.  They also need time to move around which he would not admit.  Thus, the big bang has another contradiction to overcome.  First, it was "infinite" temperature and density of singularity.  We can't have anything infinite in the natural (physical) world because one has to divide by zero then.  Second, what happened during cosmic inflation is impossible.  Otherwise, we could reproduce it as an experiment at LHC.  Do you want me to post William Lane Craig's video of the Kalam Cosmological argument again?

God's creation is when the supernatural took place as described in Genesis.  It has nothing to do magic, voodoo, fairy tales, ghosts, goblins and the like.  I do admit it's not rational from a physical or natural view of the world.  That's where faith is required.  Once the Bible was discovered and translated, it explained what had happened.  This was all accepted by science before the 1850s until atheist science took over and God, the supernatural (Genesis) and the Bible theory was removed.  A valid theory should not be removed systematically because that isn't science.  Thus, we have false science being taught in our schools today, academia and the world.

This is my last post to you as you continue to mix up ID people with creation people.  Bye bye.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > A point in mathematics - the ancient Greeks defined it as something what has no parts - is super-natural. Nowhere all around you will find a point in the nature. But without the super-natural (meta-physical) concept of points in mathematics you are not able to say a lot in physics (=natural philosophy) about the physis (=all energetic and/or material structures) of the world.
> ...



Which approximations? e^(i*pi)+1=0. Mathematics is not to calculate this approximatively. The Euler identity shows: mathematics is always the same "body", although the importance of every of this numbers here was found in another mathematical "universe".



> No, math is not "supernatural".



Because mathematics is "natural" your dog is doing what with mathematics? I would just simple say "mathematics is the spirituality of physics" or "mathematics is the meta-physic of physics". Metaphysic is Greek and means supernatural in the English version of this Latin expression.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Mathematics is not to calculate this approximatively.


Right, it is to provide precise numbers inside of a construct that we can, among other things, use as a tool approximate our universe. 

Neat equation! Can you show me a circle in nature to which it precisely applies? No, you cannot. 


zaangalewa said:


> Because mathematics is "natural" your dog is doing what with mathematics?


A ridiculous question... The dog is bound by the same natural laws, approximated by the same mathematics, as is any physical system, like a jello mold. The dog will follow the same acceleration of gravity if tossed off a bridge as would a rock. Mathematics is simply a language of logic, with the key difference being that we can define the premises as true, instead of relying on empiricism to best decide the truth of the premises.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Mathematics is not to calculate this approximatively.
> ...



I don't have any idea what you like to say with the expresion "use as a tool approximate our universe". Calculators or computers are using rational numbers. A problem in this context is that transczendental numbers like "pi" or "e" are endless without repetition.



> Neat equation! Can you show me a circle in nature to which it precisely applies? No, you cannot.



The Schwarzschild horizon of a black hole?



> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Because mathematics is "natural" your dog is doing what with mathematics?
> ...



No.



> The dog is bound by the same natural laws, approximated by the same mathematics, as is any physical system, like a jello mold.



Now you said "physics is bound by mathematics". But mathematics is only a human idea. Would you also say "physics is bound by god"?



> The dog will follow



My dog follows ... and I follow my dog ...



> the same acceleration of gravity if tossed off a bridge as would a rock. Mathematics is simply a language of logic,



A language of logic? A language of "the logos"?



> with the key difference being that we can define the premises as true,



We define what's true?



> instead of relying on empiricism to best decide the truth of the premises.



I also said once "The god of physics is the experiment". The reason: truth is "outside" of the ideas "inside" of physics. But how to make experiments in a universe without mathematics? Or: How to find god without spirituality? It exist lots of parallel structures between physics and religion. Unfortunatelly we are not able to step at a position outside (or before) the universe and take a look from there to us. Not in reality and not in our thoughts. Not in physics - not in religion.

This text below is perhaps a good distance of someone who likes to try to clear this chaos (unfortunatelly I don't know any English translation - this text here is a German translation of an old Greek text):

_Im Anfang war das Chaos. Es war ein unendlicher, gähnender Weltenabgrund, nicht hell noch dunkel, nicht warm noch kalt, weder tönend noch stumm. Hätte ein Mensch wie wir sich mit Zauberflügeln durch diesen unermeßlichen Abgrund bewegen können, er hätte mit seinen irdischen Sinnen nichts gesehen, nichts gehört, nichts gefühlt. Dennoch war das Chaos nicht leer! Es war die Heimat aller Götter und Geister, urgewaltiger Wesen, die auf die große Stunde warteten, da die Schöpfung beginnen sollte. Alles, was später entstanden ist und uns heute teils sichtbar, teils unsichtbar umgibt, war schon im Chaos vorhanden: wie ein Keim ruhte es in den erhabenen Gedanken und im tatbereiten Willen der Urgötter. Kämpfe durchwogten das Chaos, wilde Kämpfe - aber ein Menschenwesen von heute, einsam und verloren im grenzenlosen Raum, hätte nichts davon wahrgenommen; denn noch wehte nicht der leiseste Hauch, noch lebte nicht der zarteste Lichtstrahl, noch war nichts vorhanden, woran die Urgötter ihre Kraft erproben und ihre Absichten erweisen konnten, weder Luft noch Feuer, weder Wasser noch Erde. Nirgends herrschte sichtbare Bewegung, nur Totenstille und Finsternis. Auch das begnadete Auge der Seher, das weiter und tiefer blickt als der Sinn gewöhnlicher Menschen, vermochte das Chaos nicht zu durchdringen. Nur bis an seine Schwelle reichte die Rückschau der Weisen und Dichter des Griechenvolkes, und keiner wusste zu sagen, was sich jenseits begab. Was sie aber sahen und kündeten, war dies: Eines Tages habe sich ein belebendes Schimmern und wärmendes Glimmen durch das ganze Chaos verbreitet, unendlich zart: das kam von Eros, dem Gott der himmlischen Liebe, dem ältesten der Götter. Sein keusches Licht belebt noch heute die ganze Schöpfung und bindet ihre Wesen, gute wie böse, untereinander; und so belebte und befruchtete es auch das Chaos, und aus diesem entspross Gaia, die Urmutter der Erde. ...
_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 9, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> I don't have any idea what you like to say with the expresion "use as a tool approximate our universe".


Don't know what to say to help you out, there. Mathematics is a language of logic, with first premises we define as true. When applying it, it approximates what we observe. These are not complicated concepts.

Yes, it's a language of logic. A duly formed language, with syntax and vocabulary. It is correctly "spoken" in complete sentences.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...




It’s a shame you chose retreat as opposed to actually defending your claims. Your claims to what science _cannot do_ are rather weak considering that nothing in your claimed “bible science” does anything to explain the natural world.

I’m still waiting for your ID / creation ministries to submit their *General Theory of Bible Science ..*.but after these pages of posts, it doesn’t exist. In that sense, how disappointing that creationists  / ID’iots have such little _faith_ that their claims to supernaturalism will survive the glaring light of scrutiny. Just as Einstein’s “General Theory of Relativity” was the subject of relentless peer review, ID / creation ministries certainly have the right to have their *General Theory of Bible Science *_subject _to similar review_. It only makes sense that _ID / creation ministries have the same opportunities for review and testing of their theories that is provided to the relevant science community.

Don’t you agree that the rigors of the Scientific Method applied to the science community should also apply to the *General Theory of Bible Science *(when and if supplied) by the ID / creation ministries?

I think you can see I’m being facetious as we both know that there is no *General Theory of Bible Science *forthcoming from any of the ID / creation ministries. While you despise science for the knowledge it brings (so much of it refuting your claims to supernaturalism), science makes no claim to "absolute" fact. "Absolute" facts and "absolute" truth are forever inaccessible to us, since human beings can only truly “know” what they actually have evidence for. All else is mere speculation of one form or another.

Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have any idea what you like to say with the expresion "use as a tool approximate our universe".
> ...



So the human language "mathematics" existed since the very first moment of our universe. Then exists the problem that mathematics was alwas perfect and not able to evolve (not so the physisal powers, which freezed out (what most beliefers in sciene and [social] darwinsts call "evolved") and keeps the problem that we had only existed at this very first moment of history as a kind of spiritual entity which was possible and not as a biological species or individual being with any form of language. So how comes the human idea "mathematics" into a perfect existence within the very first moment of the universe - although we do not know perfect mathematics?


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 9, 2019)

Hollie said:


> ... There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual _rigor mortis_ of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.



Only to inform you: Empirism is an human idea too. Another word for natural science is natural philosophy - so science and philosophy is absolutelly the same. And no one discusses in such absurde ways about religion and science as are doing the people in the Anglo-American world. Every member of any religion is able to be a scientist. No one has to deny any "god hypothese" or has to be an atheist to make science. And something like a "biblical natural science" or an ideology "creationism" is just simple not existing within the Christian religion. Nevertheless Christians - scientists or not - believe in the creator god. For Catholics it's for example not any problem to say "_god created evolution_" and to say the next moment "_I disdain the ideology darwinism_". Social Darwinism was for example an important part of the Nazi-ideology. Darwinism is not a good way.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 10, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> So the human language "mathematics" existed since the very first moment of our universe.


Excuse you. I clearly said it is a human construct. Please do not misrepresent my words to give yourself low hanging fruit. If you are going to do that, then just stay home and play with dollies of your own design. If you are going to be on a discussion board, please address things other people say and mean.

"Perfect mathematics"

Uh...what? Sorry dude, you aren't going to put a bunch of words in just the right order to charm me into thinking math is supernatural.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > So the human language "mathematics" existed since the very first moment of our universe.
> ...



So it existed not in the very first moment of the beginning of the universe and what we say with the methods of mathematics (and philsophy and logic) about the physics of the very early universe has to be wrong. Possible. But I share the paradigma of physics that everywhere (and everywhen) in the universe exist the same natural laws. But to find out anything about natural laws without mathematics is not very efficient.



> Please do not misrepresent



I represent not what you say and do not misrepresent what you say. The English speaking world is for me a confused and a confusing world, that's all.



> my words to give yourself low hanging fruit.



A nice way to call someone else idiot. My answer: Some people die on hunger because they do not open the door of the fridge. Today US-Americans make out of everything a war - that's one of the worst problems of your culture.



> If you are going to do that, then just stay home



Where do you think am I?



> and play with dollies of your own design.



I prefer "dollies" of gods design.



> If you are going to be on a discussion board, please address things other people say and mean.
> 
> "Perfect mathematics"
> 
> Uh...what? Sorry dude,



Dude?



> you aren't going to put a bunch of words in just the right order to charm me into thinking math is supernatural.



Without any doubt mathematics is super-natural or meta-physics. When someone makes a picture of a circle with a diameter, then this is a 2 dimensional structure. In our 3-dimensional world we are not able to see 2-dimensional structures. The relation of the length of the circuit to the diameter is pi. The digit "pi" caused a cultural shock in the ancient Greek world, because it is a transcendent number. I understand this shock very well: We never could write down the digits of pi within our universe - there's not enough place to do so here in our universe. Today we use even Hilbert spaces to shock students.  We need as well pi and Hilbert spaces in quantum mechanics. And I do not see anything why quantum mechanics would not had been existed in the very first moment of the universe - same with pi and Hilbert spaces.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana

When I tried to find out the result of your philosophy "antispiritual materialism" then I'm only able to see that the universe is not existing, because the sum of all positive and negative energies of us (=the universe) is in total 0. In this case the nothing was our father and after our death we will go back into this nothing where we came from 13.8 billion years ago. But why did we exist since 13.8 billion years now? Specially: Why are you here? Why are you "materialized" for an extremely short time of the lifespan of the universe? And what will happen after your death (after your "dematerialization" or "despiritualisation")? Will you be able to materialize again? 

And why is it so important for you to be right? What do you win, if you should be right?


----------



## Mudda (Feb 11, 2019)

Oddball said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
> ...


It’s his personal opinion. Why is this in the science section?


----------



## mamooth (Feb 11, 2019)

Kaku does not have any special knowledge outside of his field of expertise. If he's not talking about String Theory, he's talking woo.

Example? His wild-eyed claim that the Fukushima nuclear meltdown  would have "unspeakable consequences" for whole whole planet. He was talking out of his ass on a subject that he knew little about. He does that a lot.

Another example? His supposition that some UFO's are extradimensional entities. Why? Because such woo sounds cool.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 12, 2019)

Mudda said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



Because god is a scientist too.

in memoriam Albertus Magnus


----------



## Mudda (Feb 12, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


God hasn't even been proven.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 13, 2019)

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



You do not have any idea how stupid someone sounds in such a context in my ears who says _"The idea empirism is my god"_. Short question: God created existence. Was he existing or not existing when he did so? And a much more important question: Why take you and your president not all insects on board of the USS-Noah 2? Nothing what the USA is doing in the current moment of world history justifies only one of the sacrifices of any of our ancestors for the survival of all  mankind. I'm sure you are in danger to make god angry.


----------



## Mudda (Feb 13, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Which god, Allah?


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 13, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...


Nexus Six with Zardoz and the _incorrigibles_, is not very heartening.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 13, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Short question: God created existence.


No, he didn't.


----------



## james bond (Feb 13, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Mathematics is a language of logic, with first premises we define as true. When applying it, it approximates what we observe. These are not complicated concepts.
> 
> Yes, it's a language of logic. A duly formed language, with syntax and vocabulary. It is correctly "spoken" in complete sentences.



Mathematics has
*∞*
(infinity) which goes to show God exists as we find mathematics in nature.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 13, 2019)

james bond said:


> Mathematics has
> *∞*
> (infinity) which goes to show God exists


Says you.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 14, 2019)

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



You know very well on your own that the words god and Allah are the same word.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 14, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Short question: God created existence.
> ...



The question was: "_Short question: God created existence. Was he existing or not existing when he did so?_" Your behavior to try to hide or to ignore such a complex question shows as well as this question on its own that atheist don't try to find out what Christians or other monotheists, who believe in the creator god, do really think about in such contextes.

So if your belief is "god did not do so" the question continues _"Whoelse created existence?"_ or _"Howelse did it happen that something is existing at  all and not only nothing is allround us?"_ or _"Why exists existence?"_ or most short question in this context in the English language:_ "Why is "is""_?


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 14, 2019)

abu afak

You are still a speechless idiot using the freedom of speech? You seem to live in the fear to be able to make something wrong - that's why you make everything wrong what you are able to make wrong. To disqualify others with methods of bullying qualifies nothing.


----------



## Likkmee (Feb 14, 2019)

Beam me up man....


----------



## Mudda (Feb 14, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


So the Christian god gives 72 virgins to Muslims but not Christians? Nope.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 14, 2019)

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



Per 1 man 72 virgins in heaven? Could be true. Men are pigs. Men are liars. Men are violent. Men are intrigant. Men love wars. Men hate god. Men fuck everything what has more than -1 legs. Men hate the mothers of their children. Men cause for example abortions and force women to make the decisions to let kill their own babies and call this "progress" and "emancipation of women" or "women's lib". ... Will perhaps be diffcult to find men in heaven.

But indeed is the formula "72 virgins" only a picture about the paradise of a pre-arabic language - a grape of 72 single grapes (fruits).

And not to forget: God and Allah is the same word.


----------



## Mudda (Feb 14, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Plenty of gods use the same word "god", but they aren't all the same god.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 14, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> The question was: "_Short question: God created existence. Was he existing or not existing when he did so?_


I wasn't responding to your question. I was responding to your claim that god  created existence.

No, he didn't.

Got it?


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 14, 2019)

Kaku's position, by his own words, is the only one that can be held by an honest, rational person:

There's no way to know for sure, one way or the other.


----------



## james bond (Feb 14, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Mathematics has
> ...



Math has proof and it and computers have proven God.  The basic math for kids (cough) and you is only God can divide by zero.

Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 14, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Well that's all hilariously stupid bullshit....


----------



## Hollie (Feb 14, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...




Yes, and people will claim to have PWOOF of alien abductions. 

Super!


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 15, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > The question was: "_Short question: God created existence. Was he existing or not existing when he did so?_
> ...



Your problem is that you are not able to say_ "I believe god did not do so" _because you believe not to believe. This makes you intentionally blind, so you do not have to think about any alternative scenario. That's why you postulate restrictions on free thoughts. And in general I fear the English language, which became the lingua franka of physics, and the English "state belief atheism" (or "science belief atheism") slows down increasingly since 40 years the quality of the basic research in physics.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 15, 2019)

Mudda said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



Because only god exists in monotheism "Allah" and "God" are the same word.


----------



## james bond (Feb 15, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



It's fact.  Fact can't be BS when mathematics has proven it.  It just goes to show that you've been lied and tricked and believe in LIES.


----------



## james bond (Feb 15, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Yes, and people will claim to have PWOOF of alien abductions.
> 
> Super!



Again, this is FACT.  Mathematics PROVED God.  I can't help it if you've been tricked and made a fool of.


----------



## james bond (Feb 15, 2019)

Here's something I did learn about.  I was wondering why God stretches out the universe as been reported in the Bible.  For the atheists, they assume it's due to the big bang or cosmic inflation BS.  Anyway, the stretching or expansion of the universe causes light to follow the curve of spacetime.  The expansion causes the light to follow, I think due to inertia, when it would normally travel from point A to B in a straight line.  So why is it important for light to follow this path?


----------



## ConservativeAmerica (Feb 15, 2019)

Atheism has always been a nutty position that's clearly rooted in emotions, not reason or logic.

Atheism Is Dead. Consider This The Obituary. - Right Smarts

What's there to like or respect about a position that basically says the universe self-created via magic, and then life self-created via magic, and conscious self-create via magic, and here we are... via magic.

That's just nonsense. lol


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 15, 2019)

james bond said:


> Here's something I did learn about.  I was wondering why God stretches out the universe as been reported in the Bible.  For the atheists, they assume it's due to the big bang or cosmic inflation BS.  Anyway, the stretching or expansion of the universe causes light to follow the curve of spacetime.  The expansion causes the light to follow, I think due to inertia, when it would normally travel from point A to B in a straight line.  So why is it important for light to follow this path?


economic inflation must happen to expand our economic universe. 

grow our economy we must.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 15, 2019)

New Cities in more optimal locations should include a supercomputer, to aid local academia. 

A SimCity model would be useful and cost effective.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 15, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Your problem is that you are not


And you didn't say, "i blieve he did."

So get your story straight. You made a claim, and I refuted it.


----------



## james bond (Feb 15, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Here's something I did learn about.  I was wondering why God stretches out the universe as been reported in the Bible.  For the atheists, they assume it's due to the big bang or cosmic inflation BS.  Anyway, the stretching or expansion of the universe causes light to follow the curve of spacetime.  The expansion causes the light to follow, I think due to inertia, when it would normally travel from point A to B in a straight line.  So why is it important for light to follow this path?
> ...



This is God stretching the fabric of the universe (or the cosmic inflation for atheists and their scientists).  I think he does it so time can march forward and space expand.  Think about it.


----------



## james bond (Feb 15, 2019)

Without God continuing to expand our universe, then it would be...


----------



## Hollie (Feb 15, 2019)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



The problem with such appeals to supernaturalism and magic is that nothing in the universe exhibits supernatural or magical characteristics.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 15, 2019)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


we have no exemption from the laws of Nature in Nexus Six?


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 16, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Your problem is that you are not
> ...



Christians never said "I know god" but "I believe in god". Our belief let us trust in god always in everything what we are doing, even in the darkest dark hole of ignorance. In terms of philosophy (and science) Christians are agnostic believers in god - what doesn't mean god speaks not with his children and believers do not "know" deep in their heart something about another form of reality, than "only" the reality, where the science physics tries to find some mathematical formulas about, so we are able to produce better instruments and machines.

It is clear when a Christian says _"God created the worlds and the heavens"_ that he speaks not so beause he got the own religous inspiration because CERN found "the god particle" in 2012 AD.



> So get your story straight. You made a claim, and I refuted it.



I'm always straight. Nevertheless the shortest distance between two points is often a curlicue. And you refuted nothing what I said - you just simple do not like to thinl about what it really is, what I said to you. Your knowldege is not good enough to be able to undestand me. Anyway I prefer all people try to find find their part of the truth and I know that I am not always in everything right. We do not live in the best of all worlds - we live here in the best of all possible worlds and in the best of all possible worlds we all are not allknowing but able to learn. What doesn't mean truth is irrelevant. Do what "the truth" tells you, and not what I or anyone else tells you. But you shoud shoud try to open you ears - same are doing by the way real physicists too. Their problem are not Christians - "truth is always true" - their problem are wrong and blind believers in science, such as scientologists and others.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 16, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



This here is super-natural with a magical characteristics:


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 16, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Christians never said "I know god" but "I believe in god".


But AGAIN, that is not what you said, nor is it the statement i refuted. So, when you are done with your extensive red herring, look me up .

Furthermore, it's a lie negated by a pile of evidence found even just in this thread.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 16, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Christians never said "I know god" but "I believe in god".
> ...



Okay is it possible to give in the English language any answer, which has to do something with communication? You refuted nothing what I said - you decided not to think about anything what I said to you - that's all. Still you seem to think your belief is not a belief and alternatives are not thinkable.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



The stridencies of your cut and paste youtube videos is cause for concern. I have work and school for a living. Somehow, I just don’t have the time to spend being so endlessly judgmental and critical and getting involved in the decisions of how others live their lives. 

It's as though religious people have entirely too much free time on their hands. That’s true for anyone whose life is consumed with being an appointed decision maker for one of the various gods and agonizes as to who is and who is not meeting a “moral” standard that religionists define based upon precepts that appeal to some supernatural entity. 

The options one has in how they live their lives is not predicated on living within the confines of an ancient social order ruled by superstitious, controlling and self-appointed enforcers of a moral code invented by the superstitious. One might interpret your posts as an indication of someone wielding their religion like a bloody truncheon and using their self-promoting arrogance as a bully pulpit. 

If there really was a God(s), do you honestly think any one of this worlds self interested, mind controlling elitist religions arguing pedantically over syntax and inconsequential piece of cloth would actually choose one misguided group over another?


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 16, 2019)

Hollie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Schärfen? Grellheiten? ... hmm - no idea what you like to say with this expression.



> of your cut and paste youtube videos is cause for concern.



Good grief ... but what a luck that for this sin which you are doing now exists not an English translation.



> I have work and school for a living. Somehow, I just don’t have the time to spend being so endlessly judgmental and critical and getting involved in the decisions of how others live their lives.
> 
> It's as though religious people have entirely too much free time on their hands.



"_When god ceated time he made a lot_" said the Irish once. And indeed exists a whole universe full of time.



> That’s true for anyone whose life is consumed with being an appointed decision maker for one of the various gods and agonizes as to who is and who is not meeting a “moral” standard that religionists define based upon precepts that appeal to some supernatural entity.
> 
> The options one has in how they live their lives



You do not speak with me, isn't it? But who else is your communication partner?



> is not predicated on living within the confines of an ancient social order ruled by superstitious, controlling and self-appointed enforcers of a moral code invented by the superstitious. One might interpret your posts as an indication of someone wielding their religion like a bloody truncheon



What has a "blutiger Schlagstock" - ¿is this the correct translation?  - to do with the belief of Christians in the creator?



> and using their self-promoting arrogance as a bully pulpit.
> 
> If there really was a God(s), do you honestly think any one of this worlds self interested, mind controlling elitist religions arguing pedantically over syntax and inconsequential piece of cloth would actually choose one misguided group over another?



So you have a lot of prejudices and you don't see the super natural magic in this very old paintings, which I see. And because you don't [like to] see it you say it is not existing.






Perfect arts - isn't it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 16, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> You refuted nothing what I said


I absolutely did.

You asserted that "god created existence". Yes, you just kind of tried to sneak that through.

I refuted it by saying, "No, he didn't."

And here we still are, 2 pages later, with me dismissing your tap-dancing  and word salads and trying  to drag you back on point. If you would like to retract your statement, then do so. If you would like to stand by it, then do so. But please spare me the dog and pony show.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...



There’s nothing supernatural about a painting. 

Perfectly ordinary, isn’t it.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Furthermore, it's a lie negated by a pile of evidence found even just in this thread.



Your pile is the hot, messy and smelly kind.  Nothing to back it up that is observable, testable and falsifiable.






OTOH, we have the Garden of Eden and places in the Bible are actual locations.

The Biblical Garden of Eden


----------



## Hollie (Feb 16, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, it's a lie negated by a pile of evidence found even just in this thread.
> ...



Fraud.

I don't see any dinosaurs.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 16, 2019)

james bond said:


> Nothing to back it up that is observable, testable and falsifiable.


Every time you say this about the theory of evolution, you embarrass yourself. I can just let you talk...


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 16, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > You refuted nothing what I said
> ...



No - you didn't. You take a look at some few words in the bouquet of fundamental thoughts, which I offer you. But you do not enrich yourselve by starting to think on your own. You just simple hate this.



> You asserted that "god created existence". Yes, you just kind of tried to sneak that through.
> I refuted it by saying, "No, he didn't."



I said:  _"God created existence. Was he existing or not existing when he did so?" _You are not able to deny a question. The question was important - not the premise. I used this expression to show to you that you do not understand the basic concepts of the Christian religion. We believe in this what we don't know, we trust in this what we don't see. Your reaction was to show to me that you really don't understand the basic concepts of the Christain religion nor the concept "discussion". I gave you a lot of alternatives to this question - also from an atheistic point of view to the world - and you gave no answer to any of this question.



> And here we still are, 2 pages later, with me dismissing your tap-dancing  and word salads and trying  to drag you back on point. If you would like to retract your statement, then do so. If you would like to stand by it, then do so. But please spare me the dog and pony show.



What we know - atheists as well as Christians - is it that the universe was super-natural (meta-physics) "before" it started to exist. Tell me why this seems to be in the mathematics not any problem, which is used to postulate parallel universes within a multiverse. Why pure mathematical thoughts are able "to see" this universes? What makes the difference to any other form of philosophy? Why is this more plausible as the idea Mary Poppins had created the world once? If you should think now I hate the idea "multiverse" then you would be wrong. For me it's not any problem, if god had created a multiverse. In general: Why are some ideas in physics more plausible than other ideas - even in case no one is able to make an experiment to prove this concepts?


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 16, 2019)

Hollie said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Aha. Picasso shared not this opinion. He saw in the beginning of arts that this arts was perfect. And he tried to learn to paint like a child again.


----------



## james bond (Feb 16, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



My point was actual locations, so I scored there.  The dinosaurs are on the land that stretches out next to the river.  There's one that appears to have crawled out of the river, a brachiosaur is nearby and sticking its neck and head out of the trees, pteranodons fly high around the mountain tops and an enormous mastodon behind the tiger on the right.  Notice they all live peacefully with one another and humans rule over all animals.  This is a 16th century painting, but quite good in depicting the action.  Eve looks to be offering the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge as the serpent watches over them.  Adam and Eve didn't last very long in paradise.  Unfortunately, they could not move the ToK, but they could've moved away from it and lived in the hills.  Speaking of the serpent, it represents you and the non-believers that have fallen under Satan's lies and trickery in the form of ToE, evolutionary thinking and history.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 17, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> No - you didn't.


Then you need to get yourself a new dictionary. You asserted that god created existence. I say he did not. And now I have been treated with 2 pages of prancing and preening, without one direct response to this refutation.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > No - you didn't.
> ...



bye


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 17, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


And not one retraction...not one attempt to stand by your statement... Just a charlatan dog and pony show...


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



You provided nothing in terms of location so you scored nothing. While you won't want to admit it, mankind has grown and learned much since the 16th century.

As to Satan's lies and trickery, that is among the stereotypical nonsense from ID'iot / creationists who have never read the Genesis fable. You should read it. It is the gods who lied. Satan told the truth.

How about I educate you regarding the Bibles you have never taken the time to read.

So, let's look at the source material, why don't we (KJV):

quote:
Genesis 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

_Commentary: God has created the plants (which would include trees) and then creates man. Then he plants the garden and places man there. Are you keeping up so far?_



quote:
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

_Commentary: Very clearly here we can see that evil already exists else it cannot be a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man at this point in the narrative has nothing to do nor any knowledge of either good or evil. Hence evil must predate Man in order for there to be a choice._


quote:
Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Now we have two questions:

1. Does this serpent lie, deceive, and tempt ("yes" to all three)-- and are _any_ of these behaviors sinful? To answer this, apply them to the model of perfection, God. Can this God...

Lie? No, it would be sinful of God to lie and God by definition is sinless.

Deceive? No, it would be sinful of God to decieve and God by definition is sinless.

Tempt? Well, perhaps towards good, but the context here is towards disobedience and thus would be sinful, and of course it would be sinful of God to tempt and God by definition is sinless.

So we can agree that the behaviors of the serpent are pretty much sinful and none of them could be applied to the perfection of God within the narrative.

Onto our second question:

Exactly _who_ (or what) is this serpent? It can only be one of three things:

A. An actual flesh and blood serpent
B. Satan
C. God

If it is A., and if it sins (and it does) then sin has been introduced into the world by a flesh and blood creation of god, and man has _not_ brought it into the world.

If it is B. and if Satan sins, then once again evil has been brought into the world by an agent other than Man (although not of flesh and blood)

If it is C. (and actually, as the Author of Everything then Everything is ultimately of God) then we have a very deep problem, and a nature that totally self-destructs as God is both perfect and imperfect at the same time (this is the core "proof" of God not existing that leads to an atheistic conclusion-- for all those endless demands that atheists prove that a nothing doesn't not exist, it is only this-- that God is a senseless mass of contradictory nonsense that can establish any sort of "proof". A senseless mass of contradictory nonsense is indistinguishable from "nothingness"). For arguments sake, let's not head down C at all since in question 1 we have eliminated God being able to sin.

Now, left with choice A or B: I have heard the argument (and it's not a bad one actually): "Well, nowhere does it say God told the serpent he couldn't be evil and it was the disobedience that is the sin, not the act of evil."

To this I would point out that if sin (disobedience) is _not_ evil, then it must be good, and if it is good, it cannot be an act of disobedience, and once again we're in a feedback loop.

But let's even concede this point and see where it leads:

What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, the Gods are all good and all evil at the same time and are completely self-contradictory. Sin is the failure of the test -- but if sin is evil, and man was kept from knowing what good and evil are (only the tree could supply that knowledge and the tree was told not to indulge), then man is precluded from being able to pass the test. God must know this, and God, being omniscient, _must_ know which way Man would choose. Hence, free will is an illusion.

According to the fable you never bothered to read, the gods lied. Satan told the truth. How ironic.

.


----------



## james bond (Feb 17, 2019)

Hollie said:


> According to the fable you never bothered to read, the gods lied. Satan told the truth. How ironic.



I've demonstrated location and the dinosaurs and scored both times, so now you change the subject to the Bible and commit blasphemy.  You're going backwards, so I would stop if I were you but TG I'm not.  I've been practicing one ahead as I've already told you and the atheists that they are under the spell of Satan.  For one, they write God with a lower case 'g' which refers to the "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" as Satan.  How does that happen without you knowing it and practically every single atheist follows it.  They do not know what they're doing either.  Even Richard Dawkins writes God in upper case because that is academic.  We are not in academia, so practically all atheists end up honoring Satan without meaning to.  What you just admitted is the atheist thinking that up is down and down is up and your conclusion that Satan told the truth about evolution, evolutionary thinking and history.  You have been tricked and deceived by lies and the mountain of "facts" you so call believe in is nothing but false faith.  You believe in lies while the creationists and their scientists realize the truth and science backs up this truth.  You've struck out on how spacetime started, how life originated (demonstrating abiogenesis), showing why today's apes and chimps are not bipedal (but continue to claim this happened in the distant past), showing that aliens exist (overcoming fine tuning, solar wind and lack of Earth's habitability) and showing how macroevolution can happen by pure chance.  For example, you have not been able to produce a dinosaur from a chicken.  OTOH, I showed why God continues to expand the universe in this thread.  See posts #263 and #264.  I have been patiently waiting for an explanation how the impossible cosmic inflation can occur, but all I get are crickets.  Even the point of infinite temperature and infinite density cannot be explained if there is no spacetime existing to begin with.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 17, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > According to the fable you never bothered to read, the gods lied. Satan told the truth. How ironic.
> ...



That was quite a diatribe but it didn’t address why your gods lied and Satan told the truth. 

As I noted, it’s clear that so many ID / creationists have never read their bibles, they just accepted the fables they were told.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 17, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You really are wasting your time with that liar.


----------



## Leo123 (Feb 17, 2019)

Intelligent people know there is a God.  Dumbass people think THEY are god.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 17, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Intelligent people know there is a God.


Actually,the more intelligence one is, the less likely that one is to believe in God. So you just kind of pulled something out of your ass to soothe yourself, there.


----------



## Leo123 (Feb 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Actually,the more intelligence one is, the less likely that one is to believe in God. So you just kind of pulled something out of your ass to soothe yourself, there.



I think Michio Kaku is far more intelligent than a dumbass like you.  Darwin, Einstein, Newton...All believed in God.   Accusing someone else of what you are doing (pulling something out your ass) is a typical, ignorant, Neo-Marxist ploy.  Stop spewing ignorance, moron.

Darwin: “I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”

Did History's Most Famous Scientists Believe In God?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> *Intelligent people know there is a God.  Dumbass people think THEY are god.*


`






`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 17, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Actually,the more intelligence one is, the less likely that one is to believe in God. So you just kind of pulled something out of your ass to soothe yourself, there.
> ...


That's nice, crybaby. But the data shows that, the more intelligent one is, the less likely that one is to believe in God. And no number of crybaby little hissy fits by you is going to change that.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2019)

*`
Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'*
People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a new study.
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor, 11 Jun 2008
Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God' - Telegraph

Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed. But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics. Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else.

A survey of *Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3% believed in God - at a time when 68.5% of the general UK population* described themselves as believers.

A separate poll in the 90s found *only 7% of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.*

Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts.

He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."...
[......]​`


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Actually,the more intelligence one is, the less likely that one is to believe in God. So you just kind of pulled something out of your ass to soothe yourself, there.
> ...


*`
"..The word God is for me Nothing more than the expression and product of human Weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still Primitive Legends which are nevertheless pretty Childish. *
_*No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.*_
_"These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me *the Jewish religion like ALL other religions is an incarnation of the most Childish Superstitions*.".."_

 - Einstein letter to Gutkind, 1954

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...ience.religion

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 17, 2019)

abu afak said:


> *the Jewish religion like ALL other religions is an incarnation of the most Childish Superstitions*.".."


No room to equivocate there...

These religious nutball charlatans have been trying to pull the same dishonest parlor trick with Einstein for 100 years. And they always get embarrassed. I guess they will never learn...


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *the Jewish religion like ALL other religions is an incarnation of the most Childish Superstitions*.".."
> ...


Can you tell?
I've had this debate a few times.
I only have to look up a few of my old posts.
And there are many more on this topic.
`


----------



## Leo123 (Feb 17, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



I wasn’t referring to a religious God you moron.


----------



## Leo123 (Feb 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *the Jewish religion like ALL other religions is an incarnation of the most Childish Superstitions*.".."
> ...



I never mentioned religion you fucking moron.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 17, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> I wasn’t referring to a religious God you moron


Then use your big boy words so people know what you mean, since you weren't clear.


----------



## Leo123 (Feb 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn’t referring to a religious God you moron
> ...



Grow up shitstain, stop making shit up about what people post.  Is that ‘clear’ enough?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 17, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...


You said, "god".  You did not clarify that you were not referring to a 'religious god".  So, if people do not know this, that's your fault for not using your big boy words.  So pinch off the little tantrum you are having, because it's stupid.


----------



## Leo123 (Feb 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



I can’t help it if you’re ignorant and it isn’t my job to explain complex thinking to you.  Ask your mommy to ‘splain it to you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 17, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...


Again, stop your incessant whining.  And let's not forget, someone had to first explain to you the reality of Einstein's beliefs, forcing you to move the goalposts and now lie about what you meant.

Yes, you are lying.  you meant "god" and got called out.  then you moved the goalposts.  It's pretty obvious.


----------



## Leo123 (Feb 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Einstein did believe in God.  He had many thoughts about religion and God however.  You just assumed I meant a religious God in your knee-jerk response.  Along with Einstein, many intelligent folks throughout history believed in God.  (as I already proved to you with citations).   Try actually reading posts instead of reacting to your TDS.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 17, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Einstein did believe in God.


Barely. One could barely even call him a deist, and I don't think he really was. And, remember, a deist is an atheist.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> *
> I can’t help it if you’re ignorant and it isn’t my job to explain complex thinking to you. * Ask your mommy to ‘splain it to you.


You were/still are an inadequate low IQ idiot.
YOU made a blanket statement.
One that IS made here regularly, and shot down.

And/so of course it IS your job to explain what you mean you dick-licking dip****.
Especially when you Claim you were advocating an esoteric rather than common usage.
`


----------



## Leo123 (Feb 17, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



You come on here, make accusations with 0 proof and act all arrogant.  Typical Neo-Marxist, idiot, brain-dead, robot.  I might add that MOST of your responses are ignorant funny-faces.   You have nothing, know nothing and are a fucking moron.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> *
> I can’t help it if you’re ignorant and it isn’t my job to explain complex thinking to you. * Ask your mommy to ‘splain it to you.





abu afak said:


> *You were/still are an inadequate low IQ idiot.
> YOU made a blanket statement.
> One that IS made here regularly, and shot down.
> 
> ...





Leo123 said:


> You come on here, make accusations with 0 proof and act all arrogant.  Typical Neo-Marxist, idiot, brain-dead, robot.


*IOW and again.
You have NO ANSWER to the FACT it WAS your job to explain what you meant by "god" ('god' an atypical usage) you low IQ Dick-licking Turd.*
`


----------



## Leo123 (Feb 17, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



Your definition of my 'job' shows you are an arrogant, know-nothing.  Your job is to prove you are not a  fucking moron at which you have, so far, failed at miserably.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Your definition of my 'job' shows you are an arrogant, know-nothing.  Your job is to prove you are not a  fucking moron which you have so far failed at miserably.


Again, NO real answer.
Reduced to Pure trolling/ad hom
You lost.
Bye.
`


----------



## Leo123 (Feb 17, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Your definition of my 'job' shows you are an arrogant, know-nothing.  Your job is to prove you are not a  fucking moron which you have so far failed at miserably.
> ...



I said your definition of my ‘job’ is meaningless and just shows your know-nothing arrogance.  Apparently you have no rebuttal.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2019)

OK.
If you insist, I'll be delighted to Gut you again by holding you're Lying ass up for humiliation onto another page.
It was always on you to delineate that you didn't mean the typical thing people do when they use the word. 
Your _atypical_ usage.
Who the **** would know?



			
				leo123 said:
			
		

> *I can’t help it if you’re ignorant and it isn’t my job to explain complex thinking to you. *Ask your mommy to ‘splain it to you.





			
				abu afak said:
			
		

> *You were/still are an inadequate low IQ idiot.
> YOU made a blanket statement.
> One that IS made here regularly, and shot down.
> 
> ...


`


			
				Leo123 said:
			
		

> You come on here, make accusations with 0 proof and act all arrogant. Typical Neo-Marxist, idiot, brain-dead, robot.





			
				abu afak said:
			
		

> *IOW and again.
> You have NO ANSWER to the FACT it WAS your job to explain what you meant by "god" ('god' an Atypical usage) you low IQ Dick-licking Turd.*


*
I don't let people off the hook.
You can insult/wiggle/bluster.
Me?
I never let people off the FACT-of-the-matter hook.
I will just continue bringing up why you were wrong, resulting in yet more public humiliation for you.
Keep digging.
`*


----------



## Leo123 (Feb 18, 2019)

abu afak said:


> OK.
> If you insist, I'll be delighted to Gut you again by holding you're Lying ass up for humiliation onto another page.
> It was always on you to delineate that you didn't mean the typical thing people do when they use the word.
> Your _atypical_ usage.
> ...



Your definition of ‘wrong’ is insane and you don’t even realize it.  I’ll be glad to keep your ass on the hook, moron.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 18, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> *
> Your definition of ‘wrong’ is insane and you don’t even realize it.  I’ll be glad to keep your ass on the hook, moron.*


How do you know that?
According to your practice, I can have a special/personal/Other meaning for "wrong" as you did for "god."
LOL Goofy.
`


----------



## Leo123 (Feb 18, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > OK.
> ...


ya


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 18, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > *Intelligent people know there is a God.  Dumbass people think THEY are god.*
> ...



In this context here means "agnostic" "atheist". The problem in this context: Atheism as well as monotheism are a belief. Agnosticism is the philosophy which finds out that atheism is a belief and monotheism is not a natural science. So a real agnostics is able to be an agnostics, who believes in god (or spirituality), or an agnostics, who believes in atheism (or aspirituality).

Today exist the problem that the  most people misunderstand the real scientific theory of evolution with very confused ideas about many forms of Darwinisms. I could write now very long about all this mistakes. For example is the natural law "evolution" without any intention - it's causal (all natural laws are causal (although in elementary physics it could be causes are also able to come out of the future)) and not teleological (all human intentions are teleological, are plans). That's why for example nothing what human beings are doing is "evolution" - with other words: Progress is not evolution!  Example: Machines are made under teleological intentions (plans and projects). Machines follow just simple our collective growing knowledge and our fashions.

And another mistake of the people, who know not a lot about evolution, but use this as an argument for everything and nothing, is for example that they don't understand the concept "random" very well. Not random creates forms - forms are part of the reality all around - in the theory of evolution forms are called "ecological niche" for example. If someone hammers a plate of metal into a special form it is nearly totally unimportant to smash a hammer randomly down on the plate or non-randomly down on the plate. How to do it is more a kind of arts. What's under the plate will appear as a pattern on the surface of the plate. ... and so on and so on and so on ... Unfortunatelly dominates social darwinism - let me call this the "church of atheism" - more and more the daily life of all people worldwide.

Back to the wrong use of the word "agnosticism" today in the epistemology of the science of the English speaking world. The word agnosticism in natural science means there, that the "god-hypothese" is not able to solve problems of natural sciene. The real problems in this context: (1) Christians don't say so. (2) Natural science follows the philosophy "empirism". But empirism is not god and no one is 7 days a week 24 hours a day an empiricist. Whoever really tried to find out, what is going on in the world, knows very well how damned diffcult it is to find the Higgs particle. Progress needs often many people with a very big patience for a very long time.

To say "someone is able to make experiences (=to find knowledge) without to think about god in this moment" is indeed nothing what's anyone in the world is really surprising. Jesus was a carpenter and he had all fingers, when he was crucified. This doesn't mean everyone has always not to believe in god. God helps also the blind chickens to find a corn of truth, if they are looking for. Oh by the way: Am I on the other side of the road now?The side where truth still exists?

So: 94% of all biologists in the USA are atheists today. And I heard in my country Germany 97% of all journalists are atheists too. And soon AI's will overtake their jobs  if this is the will of amazon or google or ...

Oh by the way: I'm quite sure real artifical intelligence is only a kind of problem of the spirit which is comparable to the problem "perpeptuum mobile" in physics. So don't worry, whoever you are. God takes care - while atheists try to become the big brother who is watching themselves and find out that they are right on their own while the worlds are not real and truth is not exsiting.

.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Be happy if he never has to save your ass, brainiac. But I fear he will neverthelless be so stupid to do so, because he believes in god.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



This theme is dead with you. But another question: Drugs, alcohol, culture, frustration or whatelse makes you so senseless aggressive?


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Einstein did believe in God.
> ...



_Im unbegreiflichen Weltall offenbart sich eine grenzenlose überlegene Vernunft. - Die gängige Vorstellung, ich sei Atheist, beruht auf einem großen Irrtum. Wer sie aus meinen wissenschaftlichen Theorien herausliest, hat sie kaum begriffen._
*Albert Einstein*

As far as I remember I read once from Einstein he disliked this atheists, who tried everyone to convince from their nonsense. 'This people are more worse than blind missionaries', he said, if I remember well.


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2019)

Hollie said:


> That was quite a diatribe but it didn’t address why your gods lied and Satan told the truth.








Haha.  You are batshit looney tunes confusing God with Satan and IDers with creationists and their world renowned scientists.


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Barely. One could barely even call him a deist, and I don't think he really was. And, remember, a deist is an atheist.









You even get this WRONG haha.  Albert became a pantheist (believed in the God of Baruch Spinoza), and a deist is better than an atheist seven days a week.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 18, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Jesus was a carpenter and he had all fingers, when he was crucified


Um...Jesus didn't have power tools.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> Albert became a pantheist


No. He waffled on that as well. Einstein was unwilling to assert with certainty that no gods of any type exist, which is the correct intellectual position. "Pantheism" is just romanticized atheism, really. So, when forced to catagorize his own beliefs into a category other than gnostic atheism, he chose the best copout: pantheism.


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Albert became a pantheist
> ...



More lies told to you by the penis snake.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


No, i'm spot on. You're a desperate, dishonest idiot that would lie about his own mother, if he thought he was follong himself into thinking it lent support the truth of his iron age fetish.


----------



## james bond (Feb 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...







Fort Fun Indiana idea of fun in hell (?)

I can see you are desperate to escape the eternal pain and suffering of hell, but Jesus stands before you so you cannot escape just like you cannot escape gravity.  Let me explain it logically.  How can it be the _correct_ intellectual position when one cannot prove nor disprove God?  The correct intellectual position is from my hero, Blaise Pascal, and Pascal's wager.  Otherwise you are "a desperate, dishonest idiot that would lie about his own mother, if he thought he was follong himself into thinking it lent support the truth of his iron age fetish."


----------



## Hollie (Feb 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > That was quite a diatribe but it didn’t address why your gods lied and Satan told the truth.
> ...



I’m not surprised you are forced to retreat to absurdities. There’s no confusion on my part. I used your bibles and gave you a clear chronology of events, in context, that represent your gods lied and satan told the truth. You now know this but have no ability to do anything but flail about like a petulant child. I understand these things are devastating to the notion of an alleged “loving god” but ignoring them does not make them go away.

The problem with all of this is that you have never even read the bibles you thump. You have never taken the time to read the fable or make any attempt to understand the contradictions. Given the story, man did _not_ commit the first sin-- Lucifer did, and thus became Satan. Thumpers literally don't understand that before man was created, there _had_ to be a conflict that allowed Lucifer to become the tempter in the test the gods offers to his unenlightened creations, Adam and Eve. Clearly, the gods have created evil, and allowed it to flourish even before Man is created.

Unfortunately, the religious perspectives you have uncritically accepted has been the prime antecedent of 2,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants; Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of an arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated book, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus was a carpenter and he had all fingers, when he was crucified
> ...



You never understand what someone says to you, isn't it? You destroy the context and then you attack your own empty thoughts, which make out of everything nonsense and out of everyone an idiot. Then you have the feeling to be a winner. But what for heavens sake do you really win? A frustrated life full of empty phrases, where nothing makes any sense?


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Sorry: but "we" (Austria and South-Germany) produced for example "the iron maiden" for English tourists of the 18th or 19th century. It never was used, nowhere. Sometimes complete torture chambers were made for tourists, which never had existed before. The tourists expected such things and so we made it for them - including lots of creepy stories. It is sometimes a little diffcult to find out what's real and what's fake in this contextes.

The Prussians for example (North Germany) - specially Bismarck during the culture fight of the "tolerant" Prussians against the "evil" Catholics - created lots of myths (fakes) too. For example the fake that the inqusition had murdered 2 million women as witches during the "dark" middle ages. Indeed "only" about 50,000 women and men were executed under such "magic" accusations in the center of Europe. And this did in very most cases not happen in the middle ages, where it was seen as a superstition to believe in witches. This had happened in most cases in the rough centuries after the reformations. As well Catholics and Protestants did do so. The Protestants executed 90% women and 10% men under such accusations. The Catholics 50% women and 50% men. In most cases this had happened under local conditions. Where the inquisitions were mighty and global structures dominated nearly never witches were burned.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 19, 2019)

abu afak 

A shadow of a shadow again?


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Albert became a pantheist
> ...



_“We feel and know that we are eternal.” _
*Baruch Spinoza* (= one of the most important teachers of my good old friend and teacher Albert Einstein)

By the way: I had really to laugh a lot, when you called Albert a waffler. This was one of the best jokes I heard this year. But the year is still young.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 19, 2019)

Hollie said:


> ... I used your bibles and gave you a clear chronology of events, in context, that represent your gods lied and satan told the truth. ...



 Today is really a funny day.Wonderful. But I missed this point. What exactly said סטנא to your eyes, when you read the bible? And how do you interpret this information?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 19, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> You never understand what someone says to you, isn't it


It was a joke...and clearly you did not understand it. So next time, maybe pause to consider whether or not that of which you are about to accuse someone is actually more true of you than it is of them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 19, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> We feel and know that we are eternal.”


Which is precisely the opposite of what Einstein believed. Do you plan to make my points for me all day? Thanks, stick around.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > We feel and know that we are eternal.”
> ...



I studied nearly everything once what Einstein wrote for public use - it was not a lot compared with his long life. You read nothing from him, isn't it? But you know everything about him, what no one else knows, except "der Alte" (="the old one", what was his favorited and very familiar expression for god). He said in different contextes different things in a long life - and everything made sense, what this "waffler" said - specially the 13 pages of his waffled "theory of the absolute velocity of the light speed" ah sorry, his "theory of relativity".  ... or was it ¿"the photoelectric effect", which was 13 pages? - one of the first - if not the first at all - publishing in a new born field of science, which is today called "quantum mechanics". He got the noble price for this writing. By the way: No one understands "Einstein" (=his theory of relativity) more wrong, than the people who say "everything is relative".



> Do you plan to make my points for me all day? Thanks, stick around.



_Jeder dumme Junge kann einen Käfer zertreten. Aber alle Professoren der Welt können keinen herstellen._
*Arthur Schopenhauer
*
A problem is that to many US-Americans of all opinions use the same elements in their way "to discuss": intrigance, ignorance, arrogance and aggressions dominate. But the most compensate this by beeing allknowing and allmighty the greater the distance to god is.

By the way: the following video is the favorite song of Stephen Hawking, what he said in one of his last interviews where he was asked this. If you remember - he was once a real scientist, who lies now in the arms of his father in heaven, knowing now (if time is an ilusion), or will know tomorrow (if time is not an illusion), much more about the real important things of life.


PS: I guess Stephen Hawking was intelligent enough to know this song is a prayer to "the love" as well as for the people, who try to be in the love.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > You never understand what someone says to you, isn't it
> ...



You try to make jokes with a member of a nearly unknown culture, which your culture reduces to about a dozen of years and the 7 letters "Hitler"?



> and clearly you did not understand it.



Sure not, because you use to try to self-fulfill your prejudice "Germans are without humor", so you are able to erase us without any empathy from this planet - as you did with lots of other Red Indian sisters and brothers too.



> So next time, maybe pause to consider whether or not that of which you are about to accuse someone is actually more true of you than it is of them.



In the time you are wasting you would had been also able to learn something, what makes sense, and helps you not to sink with your dinghy from the Titanic.


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 20, 2019)

james bond

What's your religion, confession or denomination?


----------



## james bond (Feb 24, 2019)

siap (sorry, if already posted) but just found this.  This kind of seals the deal.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> siap (sorry, if already posted) but just found this.  This kind of seals the deal.



While you attach god status to him, he’s not a god.


----------



## james bond (Feb 24, 2019)

Hollie said:


> While you attach god status to him, he’s not a god.



None of us, even believers, cannot believe they will be God.  All they can be is the best that they can be, i.e. what they "believe" they can be.  Those who believe in nothing usually end up disappointed.

What Kaku did here was discover that God uses mathematics, a human made science of numbers and its operations, and apply it to the natural world.  It is all around us.  He thinks it fits his string theory and that which led him to think God made the universe.  Math is proof, and we know there is intelligence behind it, so he proclaimed, "God is a mathematician."  It's a done deal.  Those who do not believe can be convinced from this.  Only those who do not believe and cannot believe are the ones who fail.  They fail to see what is right in front of their nose all throughout life and end up spiritually dead.  It is a shame, but this has already been decided.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> None of us, even believers, cannot believe they will be God.


Holy shit,is this even English?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > While you attach god status to him, he’s not a god.
> ...



Your unhinged, frantic tirade was actually pretty funny. Where exactly did you decide to invent “the gods use mathematics”, claim?


----------



## james bond (Feb 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Where exactly did you decide to invent “the gods use mathematics”, claim?








"Math is the mind of God."

You are getting more delusional and looney tunes by the minute.  Kaku did his theoretical experiment and it showed God created the universe.  Then he followed up on it.  What Kaku talks about in his vid is a brief historical rundown is the relationship of mathematics and physics from Newton to string theory. 

Remember from the previous link regarding this thread:
"He believes in God from a an experiment that he conducted that employed what he refers to as "primitive semi – radius tachyons", theoretical particles that travel faster than the speed of light. The behavior of the particles produced an unexpected result, prompting Dr. Kaku to come believe that we live in some sort of constructed matrix, the product of an intelligent mind: “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”

Dr. Kaku goes on to say that “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,” a belief he shares with his famed predecessor, Albert Einstein."

I suppose he was an agnostic before and is now a deist.  Einstein sounded more like a pantheist.


----------



## Crixus (Feb 26, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...




I admire his boldness,  it if he is still alive, he likely tossed his career in the trash. Wasn’t this guy on an episode of “through the wormhole”?


----------



## zaangalewa (Feb 26, 2019)

Crixus said:


> ... I admire his boldness,  it if he is still alive, he likely "tossed his career in the trash. Wasn’t this guy on an episode of “through the wormhole”?



Why do you think someone "tossed his career in the trash" in the USA, because someone said what he thinks?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Where exactly did you decide to invent “the gods use mathematics”, claim?
> ...



It’s lovely that you decided Kaku “proved” one or more of the gods but your claim to such “pwoof” isn’t shared by the science community. 

It seems the hyper-religious have a definition of “pwoof” that begins and ends at ”...... because I say so.”


----------



## james bond (Feb 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Come now.  We have had a popular former atheist hero become a deist based on his theoretical physics experiment and backing that up with discovering God is a mathematician.  I know that from C.S. Lewis, and it appears the more intelligent human beings on this planet discover God as creator through their intellect.

That leaves you out with your weird spellings, contradictions, failure to answer questions and general whiny assertions.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



I was never aware that Kaku was an atheist hero. Thats a label you falsely and dishonestly attributed.

Similarly, you have ascribed the label "deist" to Kaku and you have no knowledge if that is his position. Other than to calm an emotional requirement that people accept labels to ascribe to them, why be so dishonest as to assign these arbitrary labels when you have no reason to believe they're accurate.

Be specific and supply the _*exact*_ citation to support your claim to "weird spellings, contradictions, failure to answer questions and general whiny assertions".

I'm certain you will retreat but here's your chance to support your nonsense claim.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 26, 2019)

Crixus said:


> I admire his boldness, it if he is still alive, he likely tossed his career in the trash.


Not at all. Kaku was well known to be a bit of a kook long before this. He still has a wide audience.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Bond, it always cracks me up when you charlatan pukes will pause from calling the entire scientific community "frauds" and "liars" just long enough to point at one guy who says something you like and say, "he's smarter than you, because he's a scientist!"


Haha, freaking moron...


----------



## Crixus (Feb 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > I admire his boldness, it if he is still alive, he likely tossed his career in the trash.
> ...




I remember now. Ancient Aliens, and yes, through the worm hole to. All scientists are weird that way. They are like artist in that respect.


----------



## james bond (Feb 27, 2019)

Hollie said:


> I was never aware that Kaku was an atheist hero.



That's because you can't keep up.  You can't keep up with me nor can understand the difference between creation science and ID.  You are a looney tunes dingbat..

For the followers of the thread:
Here's his profile in 2012 -- Michio Kaku’s Religion and Political Views.

Fast forward to 2018 -- Michio Kaku believes in God, if not that God.

He believes in God, but it's not _that_ God.  The atheists do not want to see him switch to the other side .


----------



## james bond (Feb 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Bond, it always cracks me up when you charlatan pukes will pause from calling the entire scientific community "frauds" and "liars" just long enough to point at one guy who says something you like and say, "he's smarter than you, because he's a scientist!"
> 
> 
> Haha, freaking moron...



The atheists do not want to admit defeat.  They are claiming pantheism instead of deism.  If you follow Kaku, he is leaning towards deism because he talks about order instead of chance and disorder.  He states, "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence,” he told the website _Ferocesmente_ in an interview. “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore."

Intelligence means deism.

Kaku continues, "He described science and religion as having the same goal: “To determine our true place and our true role in the Universe.”"

Has a Prominent Physicist Proved the Existence of God?

Thus, it's understandable that you are PO'd because one of the smartest in the atheist camp has turned to deism.  Let's just say you're a sore loser and leave it at that.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > I was never aware that Kaku was an atheist hero.
> ...



On the contrary, the ID’iot / supernatural creation industries are the same entity. You folks all copy and paste from the same fundamentalist creation hacks at the same creation ministries. 

Scientists don't have to explain why intelligent design is not the most reasonable explanation. Intelligent Design advocates must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why they think that the products of nature _must_ have been designed. To date, they have not done so and in fact, appeal instead to a wide array of nonsensical and unprovable supernatural assertions. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to emotion and fear.

As to your new-found god Kaku, pray at whatever altar he provides for you.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Bond, it always cracks me up when you charlatan pukes will pause from calling the entire scientific community "frauds" and "liars" just long enough to point at one guy who says something you like and say, "he's smarter than you, because he's a scientist!"
> ...



Did you bother to read what you cut and pasted?

The article ends with “.....but it doesn’t prove the existence of God.”

The ID’iot / creation ministry groupies do very well at refuting their own arguments.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> He states, "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence,”


So what? And I think it was created by rainbow unicorns.


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > He states, "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence,”
> ...



That's the difference - you don' think so. And you and everyone else knows this. But no one is able to prove that you do not believe this. That's why laws and justice are totally different things. The problem: Everyone needs justice, but who thinks laws and justice are the same is only a joker. Leading scientologists for example know very well on their own, that they are not this, what they tell others about themselves. Scientology is nothing else than only a criminal organisation - completely independent whether someone is able to prove this or not. But this means not everyone, who believes in god, is a liar, when he says "I believe in god". You are just simple not able to take other human beings serious, because of your own ability to be a liar. But what about if someone says sometimes the truth? How to find out, what's really true? Your genetic information is for example 56% (¿or was it 52%?) common with the genetic information of a banana. So what? Does this mean it needs no water to live? And lives someone without spirit?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 2, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> That's the difference - you don' think so.


Right, and I am just as qualified as anyone who has ever lived to have an opinion on it. That kind of shows you all by itself what a bunch of useless nonsense all this is.


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > That's the difference - you don' think so.
> ...



Because you like to thinkwhat you think it is nonsense - (a sentence which is in my way to think not senseless for example, because a unicorn is a mediator between the transcendent world and us) - means not everything what others are thinking is nonsense too. Your ability to be a liar means not everyone is a liar. If you would be a leading scienetologist then you would know that your mimicry-belief is wrong. But an atheist for example knows not that his belief is wrong - no one knows this. But atheists believe for example often not to believe - and the belief not to believe causes mistakes adnlead to a senseless from of logic - because everything is "true" (in logic, not so in reality) what comes out of a contradiction.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 2, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Your ability to vomit verbose, grammatically nightmarelish word salads doesn't mean people will be charmed by them. I, for one, am not. My standard for "nonsense" is fairly objective, really.

Does it explain anything at all? Does it yield any useful predictions at all? Is there any method to test the truth of it?

No?

Then it's useless nonsense, to me. Religions go right in the same trash bin as astrology, Ouija boards, Wicca, and talking houseplants.

Remember, if that is not all nonsense to you, then maybe you should stop worryong about contriving accusations of dishonesty against me (to appeal to emotion, as charlatans are fond of doing) and examine your own lies you tell yourself.


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Bye bye


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 2, 2019)

abu afak 

Idiot


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 3, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > zaangalewa said:
> ...


Oh look, sensitive sissy can call names, but throws a fit when his ideas are criticized....someone call the waaahmbulance...


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



You underestimate that it is arduous to have to use the reductions of the English language. Additionally everyone around me and in my family is friendly and even in case of different opinions no one has any need to try to be a winner or a loser in a conversation. I tried to explain what I think - you did not understand it. So what? The megalomaniacal English culture is separating itselve anyway from the rest of the world. We will see what will happen.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 3, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> I tried to explain what I think - you did not understand it.


I did, and I rejected it.


----------



## harmonica (Mar 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Bond, it always cracks me up when you charlatan pukes will pause from calling the entire scientific community "frauds" and "liars" just long enough to point at one guy who says something you like and say, "he's smarter than you, because he's a scientist!"
> ...


....you [ no one ] have no clue--no idea--not even close to being far away from knowing anything about creation/god/etc


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to explain what I think - you did not understand it.
> ...



I said "you did not understand it"
You said "I did"

So verbally you confirmed what I said. You had to say "I did not [not understand]" when you liked to  say "I understood". 

And I would say you did just simple not notice what you did not understand nor did you notice any open question in this context and besides you rejected what you did not like to understand. But with "to think" or "to argue" had your speech nothing to do. You are continously in the level of human relationships (="me and 'my' people have to win") and not in contact with the reality and the subject on its own. In my point of view: You believe not to believe. You believe your belief is knowledge. So your belief is "gnostic". As far was we know from history such forms of wrong belief are dangerous. "Gnostic" believers in atheism for example murdered lots of people of other religions.

(abu afak - Do you not even have the time to let me finish my text before you show everyone your funny "funny"-comments, superintelligent allknower?)


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2019)

zaangalewa said:


> I said "you did not understand it"
> You said "I did"


Correct! I do. And did. And if I am mistaken and don't, that's your fault for being inarticulate. Well, in reality, you're just kind of full of shit and pinching off meaningless word salads. And any honest attempt to inderstand them is always met with a rebuke by you, because charlatans like you can't make their ideas plain to see. For, if you do, they will be stomped out by any modicum of reason and evidence.


----------



## otto105 (Mar 4, 2019)

Oddball said:


> _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.”_
> 
> ...



Yes, by a Big Bang some billion years before evolved life invented any god.


----------



## zaangalewa (Mar 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> > I said "you did not understand it"
> ...



You wan. Do you feel better now?


----------

