Michio Kaku: God Created the Universe

[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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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

A ridiculous question...

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

... 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]

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]

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

Excuse you. I clearly said it is a human construct.

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]

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]

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....​

`

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.

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

 

[mamooth]

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]

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....​

`

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.

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

Because god is a scientist too.


in memoriam Albertus Magnus

 

[Mudda]

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....​

`

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.

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

Because god is a scientist too.


in memoriam Albertus Magnus

God hasn't even been proven.

 

[zaangalewa]

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....​

`

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.

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

Because god is a scientist too.


in memoriam Albertus Magnus

God hasn't even been proven.

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]

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....​

`

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.

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

Because god is a scientist too.


in memoriam Albertus Magnus

God hasn't even been proven.

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.

Which god, Allah?

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Short question: God created existence.

No, he didn't.

 

[james bond]

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.