Michio Kaku: God Created the Universe

[james bond]

I already said his evidence was hypothetical.

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

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

 

[james bond]

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

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

 

[zaangalewa]

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

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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

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

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

It's mere delusion.

 

[james bond]

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

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

 

[james bond]

It's mere delusion.

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

 

[Hollie]

It's mere delusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

 

[james bond]

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

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

 

[james bond]

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

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

 

[james bond]

And why did he create us?

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

 

[james bond]

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

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

 

[zaangalewa]

And why did he create us?

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

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

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

---- The Epicurean paradox (from Lacantius):
God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is enviuos, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?
-----

The only answer we found for this problem in the last 1700 years was "We don't know!" In context with this very old tradition of all Christians in the world I am not able to understand how you are able to say god made human beings for his pleasure. That's an absurde idea about a god, who is a sadist or a liar. But god - our father - is not any liar. And to have to suffer is for sure not for nothing. I'm sure we will find an answer for all this questions - if not today, then tomorrow. But I am also sure god suffers with everyone who suffers - as he showed to us in the death of Jesus the Christ. Sure god loves it to be happy with us - but he lets us never alone. He's always with us.

 

[zaangalewa]

... the God particle ...

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

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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

Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision of the Court

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

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


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

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism NCSE

 

[james bond]

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

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

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

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

The science of God is in the Bible. If one can believe that, then they will learn about creation science. From there, one can reach God, but it takes faith upon the person. Not the other way around. It never works the other way around. For that, there is only pain and suffering.

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

 

[james bond]

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

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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

 

[zaangalewa]

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

I am not misinterpreting anything. ...

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