Does God Exist?

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Will do - thank you for inciting me to do that. Meanwhile, what did you like about Kaku - just a few things that fit in one post of course!

He's a popular theoretical physicist who has stated he finds it quite likely a super intelligence
(or God, if you will) is the force that unites and drives the universe. Michio Kaku believes in God, if not that God

I find it commendable some very bright people are able to speak the truth they have reasoned out without bending to the will of their professional colleagues, who, needless to say, aren't really down with that view.

 

[Indeependent]

I'm not trained in advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
I listen to people who do and readily tell them when they get to a point where I lose them.

The overwhelming number of scientists (trained in advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) support an expanding universe and evolution. Do you listen to them?

Can you keep a secret?
Scientists get paid to publish every word they are told to write.
I know scientists who have had to rewrite their research several dozen times until the agenda was met.
They aren't happy about it but they have to eat.
And they'r not hurting anybody.

Tell me what happens to a scientist that disagrees with Stephen Hawking.
Ridicule?
You bet!

 

[Indeependent]

I didn't think it needed to be specified but:

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them.​

A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory.

A theory is a theory, which is why it's called a theory.

How many scientific theories went down the toilet in the last 50 years?
Way too many.
If I were Hawkins, I could make up new shit every 6 months to retain my position.

Some of us have respect for science and how it is supposed to work. Every scientific theory that went down the toilet proved sicience works as it is supposed to work.

Not believing a scientific theory is your right but it obligates you to propose an alternative that explains the data.

I'm not trained in advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
I listen to people who do and readily tell them when they get to a point where I lose them.
My daughter is one of those people (born a genius).
But I always buy the best technology because I admire the science and artistry that goes into it's production.

The best technology is free......get an ad-blocker

Oh, c'mon! I have ad blocker!

 

[Indeependent]

Will do - thank you for inciting me to do that. Meanwhile, what did you like about Kaku - just a few things that fit in one post of course!

He's a popular theoretical physicist who has stated he finds it quite likely a super intelligence
(or God, if you will) is the force that unites and drives the universe. Michio Kaku believes in God, if not that God

I find it commendable some very bright people are able to speak the truth they have reasoned out without bending to the will of their professional colleagues, who, needless to say, aren't really down with that view.

You think all those Orthodox Jewish Scientists who believe in God would get more attention.
The Liberals wouldn't sponsor them.

 

[Indeependent]

Have to prepare for Shabbos!

 

[Newtonian]

T

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

True - compare Isaiah 40:22,26 which not only refers to the expansion/stretching out of the heavens but also links the existence of stars (v.26) to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). It is therefore to be expected that plural forms of God's energy are involved with the expansion rate of our universe. Also, since God is invisible it comes as no surprise (to me) that 2 forms of energy involved, gravity and dark energy, are invisible.

Concerning 'tent' it should be noted that the tent of meeting/tabernacle in Scripture is geometrically described as a rectangular prism wherein only 2 dimensions of the relatively flat tent cloths are specified. This may be a hint to how the singularity at the so-called Big Bang was formed since the corner points of the intersection of these tentcloths have no dimensions (reminds me of a singularity).
Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

.
oh, it's round ...

funny how the religionist are back to a universe (is) shaped like a tent that is flat but somehow a triangle for its beginning point as though fact when in fact no such idea could ever have been imagined during the time they are referencing.

- of course who wrote what they, newtonian are referencing were playing the same game then the same religionists are playing today.

using a fabricated book for their religion rather than facing the realities of true insubstation and the satisfactions associated with true discoveries than manufactured deceptions.

Your Bias is showing, Breezewood. No problem - just so you know I noticed.

I will stick with the scientific aspect of your post - claiming our universe is round. Earth is round - that is clearly stated in Isaiah 40:22 and you are right that no humans back then could have known this, That is evidence that while the writers were human, the Author was God.

But the illustration in the latter part of verse 22, after stating the expansion of our universe like a fine gauze (with its threads and filaments as in computer simulations of the actual appearance of our universe) gives the illustration of a tent. This hints at the possibility of a flat gauze-like universe since the sacred tent of meeting was a rectangular prism - but you claim our universe is round.

Why?

Lots of problems with the above.

What evidence can you present that the Gods wrote Isaiah? A magic pen writing on magic parchment.

Actually, the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras was among the first to propose the sphericity of the Earth in the 6th century BC, (<---- before the invention of Christianity), using among his proofs how the sail of a ship could be observed to disappear over the curvature of the Earth.

Plato also espoused a spherical Earth in the Phaedra, and his student Aristotle gave his reasoning in his book On the Heavens in 350 BC. His proof rested on the facts that persons living in southern lands see southern constellations higher above the horizon than those living in northern lands, that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and that since objects fall to Earth towards its center means that if it were constructed of small bits of matter originally, these parts would naturally settle into a spherical shape. His demonstration was so compelling that a spherical Earth was the central assumption of all subsequent philosophers of the Classical era. He also used the curved phases of the moon to argue that the Moon must also be a sphere like the Earth.

In fact, the global nature of the earth was clearly demonstrated by Eratothenes 2,200 years ago (by comparing shadow lengths in Alexandria and Syene at high noon).

Who said God wrote Yeshiyahu?
Yeshiyahu took the visions he received from God to the Great Assembly and they spent a lot of time studying the descriptions of those visions into a message.

The vowel "i" is mistaken - from what source did you find this vowel?

It should actually be Yeshayahu.
I wore a mask at work and my glasses fell off and broke; I'm waiting for a new pair.

Ah - humility and a sense of humor - I like that! I also love pears!

Seriously - here is the 1984 NW reference edition footnote on Isaiah in Isaiah 1:1 -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"“Isaiah.” Heb., Yesha·ʽeyaʹhu, meaning “Salvation of Jehovah”; LXXBagster(Gr.), He·sa·iʹas; Lat., I·sa·iʹas."

Did you know this is basically the same definition (but in Isaiah the suffix) as Hosea, Hoshea, Jeshua, Joshua, Jehoshuah, Jesus? I hope you don't mind my posting the English spellings of these names.

Btw, the Hebrew spellings of Bible names confirms the spelling of the Divine Name - e.g. long form prefix Jeho confirms the vowels e (first) and o (middle) while the suffix ah suggests the final vowel a.

This is why in my religion we spell in English the Divine Name as Jehovah (the v is an anglicized transliteration of w (waw) in Hebrew (ditto J for Y). If course, our website (jw.org) is in over 100 languages and the spellings we use are variant in different languages (and different alphabets).

Btw - I am not so sure where the "u" comes from? (as in the suffix yahu)

 

[alang1216]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

 

[alang1216]

Tell me what happens to a scientist that disagrees with Stephen Hawking.
Ridicule?
You bet!

If that scientist can show where Hawking went wrong, fame and fortune. Science is staffed by fallible humans but I don't think it is any worse than any other human creation. It certainly has plenty of accomplishments under its belt.

 

[Newtonian]

I certainly agree about Newton - notice my user name. As for Kaku - I am not familiar with him. Tell me more!

I'm sure you can Google the name.

OK, I recognize the face, I have heard him on TV. I agree with some of what he believes but disagree on other things. I would not choose Kaku as a user name - I do agree with most of what Newton believed (and Galileo, etc.)- hence my user name.

One problem with a video I checked when googling Kaku was that he said one cannot prove the existence of God. I believe there are a number of branches of scientific research that prove the existence of God as per Romans 1:20. Also, I do not agree with his separating two types of God - one personal and one in effect as the intelligence in ID (fine tuning, etc.). It is true that fine tuning does not prove God's personal name - though what is observable and testable confirms one of the definitions of the Divine Name.

In fact, the fine tuning of planet earth is in my perception proof that God is love (1 John 4:8) - both in simple things like the joy of tasting foods and seeing the Northern lights for examples, or in complex things like DNA repair mechanisms (though due to inherited Adamic imperfection these mechanisms do not fully compensate for the effects of entropy so we inherit aging and death as per Romans 5:12).

Galileo and Newton believed in both the Bible and science as sources of truth - it did not seem like Kaku realizes the connection of the Bible and science - seems like he believes there is a disconnect.

 

[Newtonian]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Galileo and Newton believed in both the Bible and science as sources of truth - it did not seem like Kaku realizes the connection of the Bible and science - seems like he believes there is a disconnect.

I don't cite Kaku because I believe in his version of God. I'm not even 100% certain what it is.
I only know he claimed that he couldn't account for the universe in any other way than to attribute it to God
which I find pretty amazing for a high profile scientist these days as it's very popular to scoff at the idea of God.
Especially if you are a theoretical physicist.

In my poor humble unscientific way I can only infer and logically deduce a creator based on what I see
and the universe itself. How can you find a machine in an old mountain creek bed and decide the machine had no creator?

 

[Newtonian]

Tell me what happens to a scientist that disagrees with Stephen Hawking.
Ridicule?
You bet!

If that scientist can show where Hawking went wrong, fame and fortune. Science is staffed by fallible humans but I don't think it is any worse than any other human creation. It certainly has plenty of accomplishments under its belt.

True. Interestingly, our literature is similar to scientific literature in respect to fallibility (though the Bible is infallible).

I.e. our older literature is out of date on many points, older scientific literature is out of date on many points (e.g. phlogiston and steady state theory). And for the same reasons:

A. Biblical research and the humility to change beliefs when research calls for this.
B. Scientific research and the humility to change beliefs when research calls for this.

In some case there is a direct overlap - such as our older literature concerning scientific teachings.

However, the Bible is accurate when touching on science despite the fact that it is older literature.

 

[Hollie]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

 

[Newtonian]

Galileo and Newton believed in both the Bible and science as sources of truth - it did not seem like Kaku realizes the connection of the Bible and science - seems like he believes there is a disconnect.

I don't cite Kaku because I believe in his version of God. I'm not even 100% certain what it is.
I only know he claimed that he couldn't account for the universe in any other way than to attribute it to God
which I find pretty amazing for a high profile scientist these days as it's very popular to scoff at the idea of God.
Especially if you are a theoretical physicist.

In my poor humble unscientific way I can only infer and logically deduce a creator based on what I see
and the universe itself. How can you find a machine in an old mountain creek bed and decide the machine had no creator?

I agree - I was simply posting my viewpoint. Certainly Kaku was right that the universe did not have to turn out as it has - he gave the example of laws of physics that can be written on one page (cp. Job 38:33) [e.g. E=Mc^2].

Actually many scientists believe in God. Some scientists are Jehovah's Witnesses.

Your point about machines (as Behe has detailed) is stated simply in this verse:

Hebrews 3:4
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

 

[Newtonian]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

 

[alang1216]

Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Actually it has an enormous amount of observational evidence.

As to Noah, why didn't he take any dinosaurs on board his ark?

 

[Newtonian]

Will do - thank you for inciting me to do that. Meanwhile, what did you like about Kaku - just a few things that fit in one post of course!

He's a popular theoretical physicist who has stated he finds it quite likely a super intelligence
(or God, if you will) is the force that unites and drives the universe. Michio Kaku believes in God, if not that God

I find it commendable some very bright people are able to speak the truth they have reasoned out without bending to the will of their professional colleagues, who, needless to say, aren't really down with that view.

I agree. Not so easy to buck peer review!

For example, in one final regents exam in high school I answered according to my belief and footnoted the textbook belief accurately. I was marked wrong. Allot of pressure to conform! I didn't. Thankfully, most of the questions were based on accurate science so I passed and graduated.

 

[Newtonian]

I

Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Actually it has an enormous amount of observational evidence.

As to Noah, why didn't he take any dinosaurs on board his ark?

Macro-evolution has zero evidence. I challenge you (in a friendly way) to post an example you are thinking of.

Dinosaurs went extinct long before Noah's time. Note that elephants were on the ark - the elephant kind survived. The mammoth species went extinct.

There is mammoth evidence for this! (pun intended).

 

[Hollie]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Sure.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

www.talkorigins.org

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

Need more?

 

[Newtonian]

Have to prepare for Shabbos!

So, do you agree the Sabbath/7th day begins sundown tonight?

Keeping the Shabbos - Orthodox in an Un-orthodox World

She makes a motion with her hands, drawing the heat of the candles to her face. Then her hands are over her face, as she performs the silent prayer

www.chabad.org