Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah, umm...I said that the "concept" was beyond his paygrade, and apparently yours too. I said nothing about it being a "reality". Perhaps confusing facts and concepts is why you are so convinced that god exists., actually I called your nonsense "theory" and "unsupported conjecture". I never called your
eternal circular universe claim "reality". That would be giving it way too much credence.
It deserves none.
Try reading what I actually posted.
Maybe you were too busy composing your arrogant condescending post to get any facts straight at all.
Michio Kaku's opinions and conclusions are exceptionally well informed and educated and that's the whole point.Logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Kaku's conclusion is an opinion, one obviously in conflict with other opinions.
I don't purport Kaku's statement to be fact but the supremely well informed opinion of an expert in the field of theoretical physics. And his words are so well informed you apparently have to misrepresent my post in order to malign them.It's not unusual for some to cut and paste other people's opinions which they purport to be fact.
Small frightened mindsIt's just worth noting that cherry-picking opinions is just cherry-picking opinions.
I think your choice of terms is lacking. There is no empirical evidence for gods or some intelligence as the cause of the universe, unless of course you have such evidence.Michio Kaku's opinions and conclusions are exceptionally well informed and educated and that's the whole point.Logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Kaku's conclusion is an opinion, one obviously in conflict with other opinions.
One can always find contrary opinions on anything at all. How informed and biased are those opinions however?
Without knowing why Michio Kaku reached his conclusions it's impossible to critique his conclusions.except in a knee jerk reflexive sort of way and that seems to be your point, i.e. we don't care what he says, he's wrong!
By the way, Albert Einstein held the same exact view that the more one learns about the workings of the universe it becomes impossible to ignore the empirical evidence that some supreme intelligence has engineered the cosmos under a rubric of all encompassing principles and laws.
Both men illustrate the truism that great scientists must have minds that are not calcified in place but open to any and all possibilities, a truism that some people (ahem) would do well to remember.
I don't purport Kaku's statement to be fact but the supremely well informed opinion of an expert in the field of theoretical physics. And his words are so well informed you apparently have to misrepresent my post in order to malign them.It's not unusual for some to cut and paste other people's opinions which they purport to be fact.
Small frightened mindsIt's just worth noting that cherry-picking opinions is just cherry-picking opinions.
refer to the informed views of others as "cherry picked" opinions. Your coping mechanism is acknowledged.
George Carlin? "Hilarious" but not in a humorous sort of way. More like ridiculous in an ironically unintended sort of way.
You are welcome to your hidebound rigid orthodoxy.I think your choice of terms is lacking. There is no empirical evidence for gods or some intelligence as the cause of the universe, unless of course you have such evidence.
Okay. Trying to make this a matter of semantics now.I'll note that Kaku used the term "intelligence" in the comment you posted. I'll note he never used "gods". It seems you're reaching a bit and inferring some "meaning" that Kaku never offered. An intelligence to the universe could be Amun Ra. Is that the "intelligence" you think Kaku meant?
Carlin, a lapsed Catholic, and his views on Christianity have absolutely nothing to do with you and your support ofNo, I think that he pretty much condensed the whole issue down convincingly to a 10 minute summary.
You are welcome to your hidebound rigid orthodoxy.I think your choice of terms is lacking. There is no empirical evidence for gods or some intelligence as the cause of the universe, unless of course you have such evidence.
Many open minded perceptive people disagree with you and some of them are uniquely qualified to notice what passes
well over your head unnoticed.
Okay. Trying to make this a matter of semantics now.I'll note that Kaku used the term "intelligence" in the comment you posted. I'll note he never used "gods". It seems you're reaching a bit and inferring some "meaning" that Kaku never offered. An intelligence to the universe could be Amun Ra. Is that the "intelligence" you think Kaku meant?
That's very, ummm, credible of you.
.Michio Kaku's opinions and conclusions are exceptionally well informed and educated and that's the whole point.Logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Kaku's conclusion is an opinion, one obviously in conflict with other opinions.
One can always find contrary opinions on anything at all. How informed and biased are those opinions however?
Without knowing why Michio Kaku reached his conclusions it's impossible to critique his conclusions except in a knee jerk reflexive sort of way and that seems to be your point, i.e. we don't care what he says, he's wrong!
By the way, Albert Einstein held the same exact view that the more one learns about the workings of the universe it becomes impossible to ignore the empirical evidence that some supreme intelligence has engineered the cosmos under a rubric of all encompassing principles and laws.
Both men illustrate the truism that great scientists must have minds that are not calcified in place but open to any and all possibilities, a truism that some people (ahem) would do well to remember.
I don't purport Kaku's statement to be fact but the supremely well informed opinion of an expert in the field of theoretical physics. And his words are so well informed you apparently have to misrepresent my post in order to malign them.It's not unusual for some to cut and paste other people's opinions which they purport to be fact.
Small frightened mindsIt's just worth noting that cherry-picking opinions is just cherry-picking opinions.
refer to the informed views of others as "cherry picked" opinions. Your coping mechanism is acknowledged.
Without knowing why Michio Kaku reached his conclusions it's impossible to critique his conclusions except in a knee jerk reflexive sort of way and that seems to be your point, i.e. we don't care what he says, he's wrong!
Surprise! I thought you posted that because you thought it was ridiculous.No, I think that he pretty much condensed the whole issue down convincingly to a 10 minute summary.
Yeah. blah blah. That concludes the sermon for today. Come back for the same sermon tomorrow. And tomorrow.My rigid orthodoxy hinges on facts and evidence. Humanity has had thousands of years of alleged gods, none of which have ever made themselves extant. Knowledge over the last 150 years has illuminated more about the universe than the past 2,000 years of gods and djinn and spirits and things that go bump in the night.
Very strange how the rigid orthodoxy of rational thinking has allowed the exploration of space, something all of the gods ever designed by mannkind couldn't do.
Because only a nut job like yourself uses the term "the gods". Have you tried asking him?My comment regarding Kaku and his specific term has nothing to do with semantics. Why would he use the term "intelligence" vs "the gods"?
Or maybe due to the supreme intelligence of the creator thatMaybe he was just careless?
In reality, there is no reason that the universe is not infinite, and without beginning, or end. People just can not relate to it, so they bend their reasoning to fit their 3 dimensional world.
I said that the "concept" was beyond his paygrade, and apparently yours too. I said nothing about it being a "reality". Perhaps confusing facts and concepts is why you are so convinced that god exists.
Yeah. blah blah. That concludes the sermon for today. Come back for the same sermon tomorrow. And tomorrow.My rigid orthodoxy hinges on facts and evidence. Humanity has had thousands of years of alleged gods, none of which have ever made themselves extant. Knowledge over the last 150 years has illuminated more about the universe than the past 2,000 years of gods and djinn and spirits and things that go bump in the night.
Very strange how the rigid orthodoxy of rational thinking has allowed the exploration of space, something all of the gods ever designed by mannkind couldn't do.
And tomorrow. And tomorrow, and all the days after that. Thanks. Be sure to wake up the person next to you on
your way out.
Because only a nut job like yourself uses the term "the gods". Have you tried asking him?My comment regarding Kaku and his specific term has nothing to do with semantics. Why would he use the term "intelligence" vs "the gods"?
Or maybe due to the supreme intelligence of the creator thatMaybe he was just careless?
was the most appropriate and obvious term to use.
That would be the most apparent attribute to someone observing how the universe regulates itself.
I'm sure that all made sense in your head anyway when the idea first rattled around like dried beans inside some cheap flea market maracas. There is just one God by definition.I just find it odd that for all the claims in this thread to the gods, supreme creators, etc., we're never given any indication that your alleged supremes are the real supremes as opposed to competing versions of supremes.
I just find it odd that for all the claims in this thread to the gods, supreme creators, etc., we're never given any indication that your alleged supremes are the real supremes as opposed to competing versions of supremes.
I just find it odd that for all the claims in this thread to the gods, supreme creators, etc., we're never given any indication that your alleged supremes are the real supremes as opposed to competing versions of supremes.
And just who would vie for supremacy against God, you silly-ass skank of a drooling retard, given that he is the transcendent, eternally self-subsistent Creator of incomparable greatness who created all other things that exist?
crickets chirping
You apparently don't know what a fact is. There is much more reason to believe there is a God than to doubt God's existence.Well, in view of the fact that god does not exist, I "vie" for supremacy against god.
Oh, you mean those gods. Why didn't you say so.I just find it odd that for all the claims in this thread to the gods, supreme creators, etc., we're never given any indication that your alleged supremes are the real supremes as opposed to competing versions of supremes.
And just who would vie for supremacy against God, you silly-ass skank of a drooling retard, given that he is the transcendent, eternally self-subsistent Creator of incomparable greatness who created all other things that exist?
crickets chirping
You apparently don't know what a fact is. There is much more reason to believe there is a God than to doubt God's existence.Well, in view of the fact that god does not exist, I "vie" for supremacy against god.
Because you say so? By definition?I'm sure that all made sense in your head anyway when the idea first rattled around like dried beans inside some cheap flea market maracas. There is just one God by definition.I just find it odd that for all the claims in this thread to the gods, supreme creators, etc., we're never given any indication that your alleged supremes are the real supremes as opposed to competing versions of supremes.
There can be no other supreme being.
