Michio Kaku: God Created the Universe

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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]

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.

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

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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

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

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

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

 

[james bond]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

Obama has a message to give to God.

 

[james bond]

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.

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]

'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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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 .

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]

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

Obama has a message to give to God.

Well then, he's right.

 

[james bond]

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]

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]

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

Obama has a message to give to God.

Well then, he's right.

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

 

[zaangalewa]

Gödel proved god

Yup and the computer was used to do the math.

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:

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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).

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

While you insist that your creator gods

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]

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".