Michio Kaku, Renown Scientist, Can Prove The Existence Of God [Video]

Submitted by: monkwarrior 9 months ago Science

michio-kahu-god-math

See that guy in the photo up above? That's theoretical physicist Michio Kaku. He claims to have developed a math theory that might point to the existence of God. The information has created a great stir in the scientific community because Kaku is considered one of the most important scientists of our times.

This is nothing like Elon Musk's theory that I-A-B reported on last week -- Musk's theory that implies we're all Sims-like characters in a virtual reality video game played by  much higher life form than us.

There are 148 comments:
Male 1,253
God doesn't give a shit. He's too busy implanting painful incurable cancer in infants and putting fatal parasites into innocent animals and letting radicals bomb and burn babies. Smart dude that. Picking his own battles.
0
Reply
Female 7,842
Even if ( and I stress the IF bit heavily) he has found an order, a prime mover ( ?) I think he is making a leap to claim intelligence- and if that is a reasonable claim with the extraordinary proof required then- who created the creator? If he has proved there is an intelligence- well- then what? I'm not sure if it make us, specks of goo on a tiny speck of an average planet in a truly massive universe throwing stuff at the sun, or whatever we are worshiping at present any better off? It certainly wouldn't make religion any more logical. If it makes you feel better then follow a religion- take your pick, religion can be very beneficial- but try not to kid yourself it is anything other than a rather odd hobby
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Good thing Monk Warrior's magical sky man has so many 'believers' ready to argue his existence for him. I guess he's too busy whipping up new batches of firmament to actually put in a word himself. Like Santa Claus, he's just too busy with his main job to bother making personal appearances. That's why Santa's elves help out.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
FYI frank, they wouldn't need to argue if people didn't mock and scorn like so, especially via a personal incredulity. It only creates division.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
". The Holy Bible tell of the importance of being humble and meek, even a verse there goes "God resists the proud", so that could play a role." Say what you like about MW, he has the humility and meekness down pat. It just drips off him.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
LJ, no one is perfect, we all have weaknesses and battles we fight that no one knows of, but also a lifetime to learn how to grow to live the best way possible with everyone.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Thanks for responnding . I'm going to insult you now. It's not an argument so need not considerr it as such. It does not involve logical fallacies as it it is pure common abuse. But first I need to nip out to the shop for milk.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
A couple of things cropped up. I'm going to have to leave the common abuse unti another time, if that's alright with you. Thanks.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
@MonkWarrior I am done discussing this with you. You can insult me all you want and try to say I'm the one in the box all you'd like, but by prescribing to a religious belief, specifically Christianity, then you can never be considered opened minded if you are following your religion as you propose you do. You want me to "open my mind" by converting to your god and your beliefs, but I left that tiny box a long time ago and who I am now will no longer fit within it's confines. Believe in what you want, but DO NOT state your beliefs as fact over any other.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
You can judge me all you like kal, because i do not conform to your tiny box of conditions, and from what i understand of it neither does all of the entirety of Christianity. You're free to have your opinion that Christianity is some twisted thing, far removed from what it actually is, which you feel is a tiny box. That is your opinion regardless of how insulting others may see it, i get that you think it's a tiny box and can see exactly how it would seem as such if you were considering the dogma, rather than the true gifts that Christ teaches of. Also, opening your mind is not 'code word' for 'convert!', it's just that your present conditions are too limiting IMHO, where definitions of words (which can have many meanings) are limited to mean one specific thing, and that focus on the word defining that thing is far greater than what that thing conveys. You can assert anything you want too kal, saying "DO NOT DO THIS", or "DO NOT DO THAT" with big bold caps, but the reality is you can't force anyone to do anything, and the best anyone can do is to strive for harmony as best as possible, and that means finding common grounds and not nit-picking.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
Man, you are just making things up now; but I digress, I am done with this conversation. Have the last word if you want but you are just spinning your tires now.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal its not making anything up at all.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
It's more of a focus on being able to explain, teach, correct, and guide, to nourish a closer human family, less strangled by division.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Says you. Over and over and over and...
0
Reply
Male 1,801
.. along with roughly 60-70% of the world.
0
Reply
Male 6,167
He's not talking about any specific "god" Boy I missed this one. Stupid vacation!
0
Reply
Male 1,692
He's not talking about anything really specific. Like I said earlier he's a talking head. Just says a bunch of sciency words that have no meaning with the point he sort of gets to... reminds me of a televangelist. He's selling his lectures is all.
0
Reply
Male 2,362
While he's not speaking about a specific deity, he's just putting a spin on the old argument about patterns and harmony..in the last minute of the video. Quotes in the article are suspect. This post was an epic fail.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
There's only one God.
0
Reply
Male 2,362
...that you believe in.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
In any event, I remember explaining to a bible thumper that the table of of elements model does show some modicum of intelligent structure (hey, I was 14 years old). The bible thumper decried that I cannot mix science with religion. Go figure.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them. " Albert Einstein https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein Michio Kaku is a talking head not a ground breaking physicist. https://www.quora.com/What-do-physicists-think-of-Michio-Kaku
0
Reply
Male 38,021
Duh! I knew all that
0
Reply
Male 1,151
I'll just stick with Russell's teapot for now.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
I think Im gonna stick with whipplefunk on this one too. Makes as much sense as michio does.
0
Reply
24
Prove the existence of God? No. No he has not, and most probably cannot, but I am open to new evidence as it is be discovered. One mans views on any single topic are completely irrelevant to the validity of that topic. Whether Mister Kaku believes in a higher power, be it theistic, deistic, or atheistic is completely irrelevant to the existence of that power (or lack of). The sole source of this divine revelation, that I can find, comes from an institution by the name of AGEAC (http://ageac.org/). An organization which seems to specialize in spreading pseudo-scientific bullshit and empty minded philosophical claptrap. Though I can hardly say I have spent enough time studying the works of the organization to make any fair judgment as of yet.... and I do not plan to. The original post links to an article which, though features the above Big Think video, has not a single source for its claims. As well, the quotes in the AGEAC article, seemingly coming from Mr. Kaku are unsourced. If not out right fabrications. Big Think puts a transcript of the video in the drop down bar under and the quotes in the article do not appear in aforementioned transcript. In summation: The AGEAC seems to be lying, or at the very least disingenuous. I'm gonna go make my morning coffee and let Hyde take over from here. I understand that most modern school systems don't focus on basic critical thinking skill, but for the sake all involved @MonkWarrior, you could at lest pretend you afforded more than thirty seconds of thought to the examination of evidence. It isn't difficult. It doesn't take a brilliant mind to see through bullshit. Children can do it. Perhaps you should spend a few less hours a day navel gazing, and more immersed in activities your own level... coloring books, perhaps. Duplo Blocks maybe? I'd suggest LEGOs, but they're a choking hazard. I love coffee. At anyrate. Hello IAB!
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Jekyll: thanks for your ad-hominem attack. I agree with most of what you said, but understand your ad-hominem doesn't phase me in the slightest. If you want to squander your energy like that on me, i'll gladly take that energy and grow stronger (don't be juvenile, eh?). Regarding the post, I am only going by what people have said online and i think his quote is legit, so i posted it here because it's interesting. He is a very prominent scientist, and peer reviews still need to be done, but obviously people who are against this news will dislike it. At any rate welcome to IAB
0
Reply
24
Ad-hominem? Where? Oh, you mean direct insult? Firstly, that was Hyde. Secondly an ad-hominem is a method to attack an argument. In so far as I know, you did not make an argument. Nor did I claim invalidity of any argument... anywhere. Hyde is asshole.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Jekyll, my bad, it is more of a straw man isn't it? my apologies.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
Go tell that all to a messianic jew, I'm sure they'll disagree because "they looked for it".
0
Reply
Male 1,801
llaa: i fully understand that there are some differences in the gospels, but again i've studied it to find valid information to apply to life, instead of looking for valid reasons to reject the lessons it contains. It has all the lessons a person needs to understand God, if that's what they're looking for. On the flip side, if a person is looking just for contradictions or reasons to reject it, they'll likely find it. Its pretty simple to understand that someone's mindset in approaching it plays a big role, along with the sincerity of their search.. a sincere and interested one will be willing to read between the lines to find connections, but an insincere or careless one will be more affixed to the words while looking for divisions. It's holy because it contains the most holy lessons in our world, which give weight to its divine inspiration, like the writings of all religions around the world. Personally i think it's ignorant to reject it for the reasons you've given so far, and i also find it ignorant that you don't understand the definitions of 'scripture' can apply to writings of the religions of the world. But hey it's your choice and i take no offense, after all, am here too trying to repair some ignorance too. No one is perfect, and we can all learn from one another if we're open about it and not looking to solidify divisions. Divisions over word definitions when they are clearly defined just takes away from focusing on the lessons those words define..
0
Reply
Male 1,679
oops @llaa
0
Reply
Male 1,679
@IIaa Thank you
0
Reply
Male 1,692
His name was Yeshua basically Joshua not English Jesus. Jesus is an english abrogation of the Latin name Iesus. You say you've read it many times, so you do agree that the gospels don't jive when compared to one another? That the lineage of Yeshua Does differ in Matthew and Luke? Or how he resurrected and who witnessed it? Why call the book holy when it clearly was written by men that couldnt keep their stories straight; hardly divine inspiration from an universe creating god? Also your being whack towards Kalron's opinion when he is only trying to share his insight to repair some ignorance. Just say writings rather than scripture and you're point would make more sense. Even so, Kal is right: not all beliefs and rituals are the same. Same goes with zombie jesus beliefs.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
You explained this already, i knew that then, I haven't forgotten it. Kal, when someone says "Scriptures from religions around the world" you can generally deduce from what they are saying that they are using the word scriptures in the sense of "the sacred writings of a religion". Yes, while the definition of scripture also says it is "the books of either the Old Testament or the New Testament or of both : the Bible" (source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scripture), it would not make sense for that definition of the word 'scripture' to apply there. I understand what your take is on it kal, but you jumped in to nit-pick on my post to llaa, so its up to you to use some sound judgment. But kal's-tiny-box-of-dividing-conditions is still too small for me to conform to.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
OK here we go again. Scriptures are the writings of either the Old Testament or the New Testament or of both. However Sutras are the Discourses of the Buddha and are far beyond writings. They include the images of either Hindu Gods or Mandalas to meditate on and throughout. So when you place Buddhist teachings into a tiny box called "scriptures" they do not fit because there is no written or spoken definitions to the meanings learned from meditating on said images. It is disrespectful for you to imply that it does.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
llaa: I've read the holy bible many times, Jesus is a very righteous guy, a role model for so many, and who has been inspiring and guiding people around the world since He's been with us.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal, more conditions? you're really trying to force your way on others, contradicting what your previous assertion that you dont. Go look at the definition of scripture again, and if you can't see how they can apply to all world's religions, you're just trolling.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@celibatefighter - I've read the bible in both hebrew and greek. I can name more but honestly, you need to read your bible with a critical mind. Dont just think you got the holy ghost and be done with everyone else's opinion outside of apologist's rehashing of old dumb arguments. Yeshua was a righteous guy, wrong in many ways but in his heart he was dope as fuck. This man's heart spoke to many that dealt with oppression and to this day he helped ensure some semblance of such feelings into western European governments. Now that I said that, do you think Coptics view him the same way you do? Or Ethiopians view him the same way? Or how about Korean Moonies?
0
Reply
Male 1,679
Again, "Scriptures" are only applicable to Christianity and The Holy Bible, not other World Religions or Cultures. There are plenty of reasons in science to reject many of the teachings in scripture, specifically the many contradictions that exist within. Science does not allow for contradictions, there are only new discoveries that can disprove a prior concept. Again, do not try to put other philosophies, including science, into the box that is Christianity, they do not fit.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
llaa if you want to reject the entire scripture on that one paragraph, it is your choice. Scriptures from religions around the world contain many in depth lessons on how to live life, and how to come to understand what the writers were trying to convey. Sometimes you have to study for a while to get anywhere, but there are many things in the scriptures of the world that have been found to be true, which is why they are they are studied so much (especially the Holy Bible). I had a chance to just reject them off hand when i was younger, but the scientist in me said that would not be scientific without a valid reason, and that i should reserve judgment until a more in-depth critique. Well upon closer study i found that they held some of the most important information. Probably the difference was i was looking for valid information instead of looking for valid reasons to reject it as some sadly do.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
Testimony? Yo bru. Most of the testimony in the bible are anachronistic, i.e. written many years after the event, sometimes 100s of years. For instance, the fable of the destruction of the walls of Jericho. Did you know that the city of Jericho was in ruin for 800 years before the OT story was written. We know this now, due to archeolgy performed at the site in the 20th century. The OT story is a myth and fable written by the Jewish upper class as a claim of the power of their god. And if you believe the prophet isiah, then god speaks through dreams. Today we know that dreams are formed as a method for the brain to collate data from the previous day. Alas, there is no proof of testimony in the 4 NT gospels you adhere by. If you read the gospels and compare them to each other, they are drastically different... And lastly, did you know that the gospel of luke and acts were together a 2 volume story that was separated and rearranged. Acts is hardly a good testimony when compared to even Paul's letters, i.e. was it the jews that forced him in the basket ala acts or were it the pagan government ala Epistles (Paul's letter)... Do you see where your wrong in assume testimony?
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Jekyll: I was just saying that the bible is testimony, and testimony is also considered evidence. So if you want to say "please do not try to invoke the bible", it's like an inverse-cherry-pick fallacy, where you cherry pick against the evidence of testimony, but want 'other' evidence. It just seems ridiculous. As for your claim that the Bible cannot be validated without the bible, that's just your opinion. Because the truth is testimony of those who have found God have all been very similar, all which have had a huge positive impact on people's lives. These testimonies echo one another, and also what has been found in scripture.
0
Reply
24
@MonkWarrior "...inverse-cherry-pick fallacy..." What the fuck are you talking about? You, nor anyone which frequents this board, are nearly smart enough to start making up logical fallacies. Sorry, we just aren't that good... You do understand why the claims of the Bible cannot be validated by the Bible right? I'm not even trying to be a dick. You do understand why right?
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Jekyll: I'm not in charge of your faith, my claim there is a testimony. You have to do with that what i had to do with them before i knew the truth, test it. I find it a bit ironic that you use the term "please do not try to invoke the bible" like an inverse-cherry-pick fallacy. You asked for specific evidence and i did point to the bible, which is testimony too, that you just wanted to reject off hand only serves to hurt you.
0
Reply
24
@MonkWarrior "There's only one God, and i have done a lot of research into the human aspect of what you ask." Why should I believe that claim, and not the claim that there are many god than pantheist assert? Please... do try not to invoke the bible... -------- @MonkWarrior ""What can those who believe in a god see, that those that do not, cannot?" It's a very good question to ask. There are many ways to answer it."" What SPECIFIC EVIDENCE! Not What bullshit feel good pseudo-intelectual half answer can you pull out your ass... what evidence can believers see that others cannot?
0
Reply
Male 1,679
@MonkWarrior " There's only one God, and i have done a lot of research into the human aspect of what you ask" Opinions are like Assholes and______'Hyde is Asshole'_____
0
Reply
Male 1,679
@Jekyll "As for the existence of a being which could be called a god, my personal stance is that one cannot use logic or science to quantify an omnipotent being." I'ma save that in the spank bank and use it later ;)
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Jekyll/Hyde: That's anecdotal, i'm all for an atheist suggesting studying religion, because the reality is that more people will find out there really is something out there than those that will say there is nothing. There's only one God, and i have done a lot of research into the human aspect of what you ask, "What can those who believe in a god see, that those that do not, cannot?" It's a very good question to ask. There are many ways to answer it. The Holy Bible tell of the importance of being humble and meek, even a verse there goes "God resists the proud", so that could play a role. It could also be that it depends on the mindset of who/when they are studying or what they are ultimately seeking. For example A budding story teller/author may really love Shakespeare, and study it intently, but a budding computer programmer may be "Shakespeare, why do i need to read that tripe"? All speculation but i'm getting closer to that, if you can provide any information on it please do. Also i think like a lot of people have said in the past, that everything is connected, and i think it's more so than most realize.
0
Reply
24
I may, though most sites frown on multiple accounts, even if its useful at times. As for the confusion... welcome to my world :P. As for your study, so have I. So have many atheists and theists. So why, may I ask, do a great number of Atheists suggest studying religion as a road towards atheism? What can those who believe in a god see, that those that do not, cannot? Also.. which god? El-Shaddai? Thor? I used to worship The Horned One (former wiccan), and for a time the Buddha. As well... what proofs? How are you capable of even cognitively experiencing an organism (in so far as the word is applicable) that is literally EVERYTHING. You a finite organism, you are incapable of storing an infinite amount of information, no?
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Jekyll: you should get another account for "Hyde" if if you want to play that way, less confusing. It's your choice to believe what you want. As for me personally, i've studied and researched enough to confidently say God is real. I think that there is a time coming when science proves God, because the spiritual proofs are already there for those who have been looking for them.
0
Reply
24
No. Jekyll pointed out everything he saw wrong with the article you shared. And Hyde was just being an asshole. As for the existence of a being which could be called a god, my personal stance is that one cannot use logic or science to quantify an omnipotent being. As, by definition the being is infinite. There is no... yardstick, as it were, long enough to measure this god thing. There for I am incapable of saying whether or not it may exist. Though, gun to my head make a decision, I would be inclined to say prolly not.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Well obviously Jekyll, you attacked what you perceived as me making an argument with this post, when it was just an interesting post that i thought i would forward here.
0
Reply
24
I see. And what argument did I attack? Also, "...you could at lest pretend you afforded more than thirty seconds of thought to the examination of evidence. It isn't difficult. It doesn't take a brilliant mind to see through bullshit. Children can do it. Perhaps you should spend a few less hours a day navel gazing, and more immersed in activities your own level... coloring books, perhaps. Duplo Blocks maybe? I'd suggest LEGOs, but they're a choking hazard."
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Jekyll: "Perhaps you should spend a few less hours a day navel gazing, and more immersed in activities your own level... coloring books, perhaps. Duplo Blocks maybe? I'd suggest LEGOs, but they're a choking hazard." Is pretty much ad-hominem and straw man combination.
0
Reply
24
Incidentally, I submitted my first.. submission to this site a half hour or so ago. I hope you will enjoy it. I so far as you'd be capable of understanding it! Shut up Hyde, your not useful right now.
0
Reply
24
I cannot even see where you may think there is a straw man. You claimed I used and Ad-hominem. I explained what an Ad-hominem is and is not... then... Straw Man? Please, if I made I mistake I would happily be corrected upon it.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
You can watch @MonkWarrior 's debate method. He will refuse to answer simple questions, say "logical fallacy" a dozen times without backing it up, Say you don't understand the bible so can't have an opinion, and end with you are "scared" of god. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Its adorable.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Judge away HG, you're confirming your pride is causing you to be this way. But you still don't know what others think but yourself. Don't forget, pride goes before the fall dude.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
@MonkWarrior you are ABSOLUTELY entitled to your delusions. You'll notice during your digging that nobody else sees it that way.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
HG: if you want i could spend some time and dig up the links to the posts where you have completely crashed and burned, and then it reached a point where you could not answer at all. But you did your usual thing where you pretended like it didn't happen and ignored it (like so many answers i've already given you). It's like a pride thing you have to deal with HG.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
@MonkWarrior. I succeed against it every time. The only person on this site that thinks you are winning any debate is you.
0
Reply
24
Hi HG. Yeah, @MonkWarrior is one of the reasons, after nearly 5 years of lurking, I decided to make an account and... attempt to rectify some poor argumentative technique on this site. I do not think I will get through to... well most, but if I can even inspire a single person to use that beautiful lump of flesh inside their heads, it will be well worth my time.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Actually HG, you know i answer questions. But unfortunately, you use a lot of fallacies and have no desire to correct them, like your straw man here. If you knew my debate method you would be able to succeed against them, or you would be wise enough to remain silent. But because you don't, i understand it's embarrassing to get called out and then have to go silent because you can't defend them, but you should reconsider using fallacies.
0
Reply
24
*an asshole
0
Reply
Male 1,151
yeah, "Hyde is asshole" is gold!! GOLD!
0
Reply
Male 1,679
I liked it better when it was "Hyde is Asshole", that is going on a bumper sticker for sure.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
Monk, surely you understand the difference between "god" and all the bullshit that you believe like a guy living in a whale, and 2 of every animal living on a boat right? You don't for a second believe that this guy actually believes that do you? When he says "god" he isn't talking about YOUR god just like Einstein wasn't talking about YOUR god. They think your god and your bible are silly superstitions held by imbeciles. You probably shouldn't invoke them on your side.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
I'd love to discuss it with you HG. But if you want to come out with ridiculous logical fallacies, like a troll, it's not going to work that way. You're a grown man, so why not let go of the fallacies, ask a question that isn't packed with your hate/fear, and laced with ad-hominems and ignorance of our previous correspondence (which has already answered everything you've assumed incorrectly about me again)? Don't bother replying if you can't, or want troll.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
WHAT logical fallacy?
0
Reply
Male 1,801
If you're an intelligent guy you should be able to figure it out @ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
0
Reply
Male 1,801
So you speak for everyone now, HG? Don't get delusions of grandeur on us. But at least try make an effort to use adult language vs juvenile.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
@MonkWarrior you keep following that playbook. Nobody on here buys your utter bullshit sheep boy.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
HG i can answer plenty, and you know it. I'm not about to waste my time when you've shown repeatedly to argue from ignorance, with ad-hominems, even where you completely ignored answers in the same thread by asking the same question again!
0
Reply
Male 7,960
When you make an accusation the burden of proof is on you. I know "proof" is a difficult concept for a religious nut, but if you're an intelligent guy you should be able to figure it out.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
You can't answer a single fucking question huh?
0
Reply
Male 7,960
Fair enough. Let's start with a baseline because perhaps I have made assumptions about your belief structure. Do you believe the bible literally?
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Sorry HG, that was already answered too. Sorry to hear you have such a bad memory on that. Maybe if you go back through our correspondence you can see it. You see, i actually care about what i write, and care to learn of others. But i don't care enough to repeat myself to someone who has consistently ignored things I've brought up in the past, continually trolls what i post, shows no sincere desire to learn something new, and is primarily interested in attacking what, presumably, sends your world-view into a shaky tiff.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
You've never answered that question directly. Its a yes or no question.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Thank you, Kalron. Well put.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
Michio Kaku is a Pantheist, meaning he does not believe in a "God" per say, but rather that "God" is the Universe. Here is a direct quote from him: "When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. For example, one of the most important revelations in Einstein’s early childhood took place when he read his first books on science. He immediately realized that most of what he had been taught about religion could not possibly be true. Throughout his career, however, he clung to the belief that a mysterious, divine Order existed in the universe." This "Divine Order" is Math, Physics and the observable Universe. I see where you are trying to go with this @MonkWarrior, but unfortunately this interpretation of "God" is not the Judeo-Christian and he is not trying to prove that the Judeo-Christian "God" exists, but rather it is the ongoing scientific search for "The Universal Law" that governs everything.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal, regarding the "universal law" and the "God of order", even Einstein said that "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind". The religion Einstein was talking off is that universal law, God of order. Michio is saying "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, he affirmed. “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.” He is not making any reference to "Jeudo-Christian "God"" for or against, like you are. He is saying that the rules were created by an intelligence, and to most of the world, yes, that would be viewed as God. Still, i find it interesting that you felt driven to point out that it is not a specific God (without anything to back it up than assertion), which shows you fear that, but in the very least shows how you failed again in assuming you know me, or how i think (when you do not). Haven't you heard that old addage "When you assume you make an ass of u and me"? Cripes, seriously dude. HG: your assumptions are pretty arrogant yourself (see above)
0
Reply
24
@MonkWarrior "...even Einstein said that "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind". Appeal to authority. And no... that is not cherry picking. @MonkWarrior Michio is saying "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, he affirmed. “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.” Would you kindly provided a SOURCE for the quotes, as in both times I watched the video I did not hear either of these statements. And they do not appear to be in the video transcript. The article from AGEAC does not SOURCE the quotes properly.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
"Science without religion is lame, and religion without science" is just a fact, which is why i posted it. I don't have access to the source. I've been hearing that this has been turning science upside down for the last day or 2 and this is the closest source i've found of his quote.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal: yes you've got thist kal's-tiny-box-of-dividing-conditions which define all of the divisions in order to maintain the division, and has no room for possibilities to find common grounds, nor ways to deviate from the pre-defined conditions, so that division remains perpetual, and so too does argument. . If you want to argue for arguments sake, over nit-picking, you have a bit to learn about harmony, kal. Ask yourself, are the words to describe the lessons more important than the lessons themselves?
0
Reply
Male 1,679
I do not have conditions, rather respect for cultures by defining them as they are. You however are implying your beliefs onto others and your terminology does not belong, please continue below where I will explain to you the differences in terms and the reason why you are disrespecting another culture by inserting your definition into their culture. My mind is open, I don't have boundaries...but you do with your Christianity, as I stated; your chosen belief has rules and regulations that you must abide by in order to partake in said belief structure. That is no my opinion, that is Fact in Scripture.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Open your mind a bit kal, see beyond your conditions and imaginary boundaries, and look with an eye for harmony.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Again kal, you can have your opinion that the God he's talking of differs to what other people see as God. But that is your opinion or 'condition', which is more like nitpicking words, like in the Musk thread where you were so concerned about the word used to describe the lessons. You can demand your 'condition' is the only way it can be, like your other 'conditions' to maintain your division, but it's to your loss. Because many people understand there's only one God, who created all things and put us in this world, as Michio said, "made by rules created by an intelligence”. Again, you're free to have your opinion that there's a separation, but honestly it looks like nit-picking
0
Reply
Male 1,679
"Anyway call it what you will, but it's a fact of life to me, kal." That sentence is your opinion as is the rest of your tirade. I'm not here to discuss any of that, I am here to discuss the fact that Michio Kaku is not talking about your god and your god is not "The God of the Universe". Also I am here to represent Einestein and your misrepresentation of his quote, nothing further, that is fact. I can repeat myself all day long too.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
kal, this can go on all day, but a fact is a fact. Religion is here today, yes? yes, that's a fact. Science is here today, yes? yes that's a fact. Are there any faithful scientists, yes? yes many, one example: smarter every day, a fact of co-existence. That proves "science and religion co-exist". They exist, can co-exist, and do co-exist. Ok lets move on. Ideals can divide people in today's world, yes? Yes, that's a painful fact. Division leads us to work less efficiently, yes? Yes this is a fact. 2-100+ average people working on one project can achieve more than one average person working the same project, yes? Yes,that's a fact. In light of all of these facts, is it better to work hand in hand, efficiently as much as we can, with one unifying ideal like love one another? ..... this is where it comes down to where you decide opinion or fact, to me this proves the "and are best when working hand in hand" part. This work on a small scale, but i've never yet seen it on a large one. You can say it's an opinion, and that's ok, but just respect that a lot of people in the world use see science and religion as two unique tools to help us understand our existence on both a physical and spiritual plane. Anyway call it what you will, but it's a fact of life to me, kal.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
My opinion is my opinion as your opinion is your. But do not for one second place you opinion over mine as Fact. The only facts here is that Michio Kaku is a Pantheist and Einstein's quote on religion was taken out of context by you.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal, I already said i'm aware that it's your opinion that it's not a fact.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
"this is AN OPINION: science and religion co-exist and are best when working hand in hand." Seriously, that is your opinion, not mine.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Jekyll: If it's what children do why did you do that in the first place? Thanks for your assertions, but i can obviously argue and think critically, as for insults it's juvenile so why bother? Take care.
0
Reply
24
@MonkWarrior Insulting me with the same insult I just threw at you, is a what children do. So you can't argue, you cant think critically, and you can't deliver an insult... Well... I'm out. I don't take pleasure in punching babies.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Jekyll: it does not surprise me in the slightest that you have an issue understanding what a fact is.
0
Reply
24
@MonkWarrior "...fact to me..." "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
0
Reply
24
@MonkWarrior "I've found that you will know a Christian by their love. " @MonkWarrior Christ has the final say over who is Christian or not.... So your opinion of what is a Christian is completely worthless. So why bring it up?-------- @MonkWarrior " But imho it would be bit ridiculous, mainly petty, to focus on the little bad religions have done, while rejecting the immense good they've done."... Being petty, or not, does not have any bearing on... anything. Hyde is a cruel, vicious, vindictive, violent, vulgar bastard. You really think he wouldn't stoop to petty? As for more good than bad... Again you made a claim. Please support it. Actually don't. It doesn't matter. You claimed empathy can somehow be linked to Christianity. And so can unthinkable acts of violent anti-social behavior, be linked to Christianity. This is an actual fact... Whether more good or bad has come from religion. I don't care. Cause it still would not be indicative of the validity of the claim of god, let alone any of the Abrahamic Deities.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal: I understand what this discussion is, but i'm not forcing anything on anyone. I'm participating in an online discussion. It's a fact to me that science and religion co-exist now, along with the fact that they both work best when working hand in hand. I personally have seen the evidence of this fact, and even our societies today attest to it. You think it's an opinion, i understand you think it's an opinion, but again, it's just your opinion. Now, FYI you are the one telling people to 'stop' things your opinion disagrees with, and in just the other thread you clearly stated you have at least 3 rules. So you're contradicting yourself kal.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Jekyll: you can post whatever you want, i'm not the boss of you. If you want to link to a so-called 'Christian hate group', just be prepared that most Christians know that Christ has the final say over who is Christian or not. But imho it would be bit ridiculous, mainly petty, to focus on the little bad religions have done, while rejecting the immense good they've done. Also, regarding the 'no true Scotsman', there is actually a real person known as Christ.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
@MonkWarrior You need to take a long hard look at your approach to this discussion. You are the one that is forcing their 'opinion' on us, not the other way around. What you are stating as fact is your opinion of Einstein's quote, but not his meaning as shown by the remainder of the article he wrote that you are ignorning. "Science and religion co-exist and are best when working hand in hand" That is an Opinion not Fact. I do not abide by any rules or conditions, you definitely have those based on your Jeudo-Christian philosophies, because that philosophy has rules and conditions you must abide by in order to participate in said religion. I am not divided, I am whole for one in my life without these contexts or concepts. I don't own a box nor am I in one, I am free to wonder the Universe and explore at will.
0
Reply
24
Haha. Thank you Kalron. @MonkWarrior "I've found that you will know a Christian by their love. " Hah... Do I really need to starting linking Christian hate group to IAB? Please don't make me... "But Hyde!" He whined, the shrill of his objection like razor winged flies in my ears, "Those aren't REAL Christians!" And there is no such thing as a real Scotsman either....
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal, i'm sorry, this is a fact: science and religion co-exist and are best when working hand in hand. That's the gist of his quote, and many people understand this, and i knew it long before i even heard Einstein's quote. You want to disagree, your choice, but the fact is the fact. Also, i have no 'tiny box', but it looks like you're the one with a 'tiny box', with all the 'rules' and 'conditions' and 'assertions' you have been making over this post, and the previous topic on Musk's 'video game' idea. If you want to keep things divided its your choice, but that's too much of a tiny box for me, since i understand that love belongs everywhere, and love works at breaking down walls that divide, and building bridges over chasms that separate. So if you want to stick with your own box, whatever size you feel it is, i'll stick with the facts of life.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
That sentence is NOT FACT, you are only presenting it as such OUT OF CONTEXT in regards to the entire article. Your statement "without religion we would have no concept of good or evil, right and wrong"; you are confusing religion with morality. There are plenty of cultures that have these moralities without a religion or god. Stop trying to put other concepts into your tiny box, they do not belong.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Being empathetic is not far from what God asks of us "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". As for the pleasant young woman, it's irrelevant, because some people like to keep that private, even when asked point blank. I've found that you will know a Christian by their love.
0
Reply
24
No. I am more than happy to break the laws of my society if it serves my moral ideals better. I have before and I will again. My morality is informed not from law (as law and morality have little in common), but instead a sense of empathy for living organisms. As for what I perceive as bad... you are making a lot of claims as to my person when you know nothing about me.... Save, perhaps, I enjoy playing the troll.... Your god of Abraham is not quite as big as you seem to think he is... just the other day I met a pleasant young woman who had never met a single christian, despite living in one of the largest cities on earth.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
I didn't claim that Jekyll/Hyde. The world has not been without faith in God since at least Abraham. God's laws have inspired societies all around the world, and have helped benefit all those societies. So obviously, regardless if you believe in God or not, the society you live in (which has laws that were inspired from God) will most certainly have an effect on your "moral code". Because you will see what you perceive as "good" and 'bad", and strive for one or the other, or just not give a hoot and hope for the best.
0
Reply
24
Hyde has something to say... You fucking moron. Logic debate and reason aside, "winning or losing", right or wrong. You are a moron. (Is this an ad-hom as well?) Calm down there Hyde! You claimed, if i understood correctly, that one is incapable of having morality without religion. I do not have religion. Yet I have a moral code. Thus, the claim of religion without morality is untrue. As to what appeals to emotion have to do with this... *shrug*
0
Reply
Male 1,801
You said "As for morality without religion. B.S". To which i replied "call "bs" all you like, but you have nothing to back it up. How does your moral code play into that, appeal to emotion? "
0
Reply
24
What emotion am I appealing to exactly? And to what end? @MonkWarrior "How does your moral code play into that, appeal to emotion? " What? Play into what?
0
Reply
24
No. Not in the least.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Jekyll: call "bs" all you like, but you have nothing to back it up. How does your moral code play into that, appeal to emotion?
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Jekyll: i fully agree that quote is not sourced, but with the stir it's been causing, i'm inclined to think that its a legit quote until i have reason to not believe it is. It will take more than someone calling the source "bs" that anyone can do for whatever they don't like.
0
Reply
24
At best you only demonstrated that Science without Morality is cruel. Not lame. As for morality without religion. Bullshit. I have a very rigid moral code which conducts every action. I am an atheist.
0
Reply
24
"He could have prayed to the The High Priest of the Elder Gods for all I care." Now this is a Straw Man @MonkWarrior
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal, the facts are this: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ok? 1> Without science we would have no pencils, paper, printing press, tablets, means to communicate what religion teaches, meaning religion without science is blind because it will never progress and its lessons would be lost. 2> without religion we would have no concept of good or evil, right and wrong, no means to weigh if what we are doing is ethical or not, meaning science without religion is lame because it would wipe us out since we have an inclination to do evil (as history attests).
0
Reply
24
So... you agree then that the quote is not sourced, and there for useless as evidence for any assertion of the article? And again, what Einstien thought is irrelevent. He could have prayed to the The High Priest of the Elder Gods for all I care. Unless he can demonstrate an elder god... as for "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind." I challenge that assertion. Please demonstrate evidence of its factuality. In what way is the scientific method unable to function without religion?
0
Reply
Male 1,679
Again, by only repeating that sentence, you are misrepresenting the facts. Please read Einstein's articles on "Science and Religion".
0
Reply
Male 1,679
Here is another quote from Einstein: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”
0
Reply
Male 1,801
I've already read that quote, and..?
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal: yes, i do personally refer to God as He or Him, but i don't subscribe to kal's-tiny-box-of-dividing-conditions, which means i must reject people referring to God as a woman. It is beside the point to me kal, the relationship is more important than the words that describe gender, and i'm not focused on the gender more than the relationship.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
@MonkWarrior that is not what I "think", that is what you have stated repeatedly..."HE" or "HIM". And Yahweh is male in in Hebrew, there is no translation otherwise, it is a Masculine Proper Noun. That would be another Fact in this conversation. Jewish and and Christian theologies are Patriarchal by definition.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal, its not what you think.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
Gender is important in the Jeudo-Christian religion. Yahweh is a masculine noun and cannot be attributed to a female form. "He" is the only gender for the Jeudo-Christian "God". Other cultures have feminine Goddesses, but not Christianity.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Well some people consider God as a mother too, and i've heard some people saying that God showed up to them as a woman. The gender isn't as important as the relationship.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
My Mother raised me so...
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal: Again, there's only one God, and He's referred to as a He because the relationship resembles that like a child has with a loving parent.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
" and the love 'HE' asks of us"...so the Jeudo-Christian Holy Bible? Because that and 1slah are the few religions that designate the male gender with "God".
0
Reply
Male 1,801
HG: my belief structure is based on God, and the love He asks of us.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
@MonkWarrior so you don't base your belief structure on the bible?
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal: Sorry, i have made no argument about that. Einstein has his belief, and he's entitled to it, which is what he said. Also I think you're still assuming things again and making a misconception. HG: troll on, he never knew me, how could he know my belief structure? How can you?
0
Reply
Male 7,960
@MonkWarrior Einstein specifically calls your belief structure primitive, childish, and the product of human weakness. Is that because he wasn't as wise as you and was scared of god?
0
Reply
Male 1,679
It contradicts your argument that Einstein or Kaku are trying to prove the existence of "God" in the religious terminology.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
Any thoughts on that @MonkWarrior ?
0
Reply
Male 1,679
Also, you are misrepresenting Einstein's quote by reducing it to suit your argument. In it's entirety, it does not give solace to religion. “If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described. For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.”
0
Reply
Male 1,801
kal: you ignored what i said following that quote. Einstien is talking of a universal law, in fact that was one of his main life goals to find the equation of everything. The bottom line regarding the quote is that science and religion co exist now, and when they work closer things are be better. Science and religion are both valid tools for unique tasks, and one tool cannot do the job of another, any more than a square screwdriver can tighten or undo a slot screw. The quote is not misrepresented, you just don't like how it was used because you assumed again.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
@MonkWarrior You are the one who is referring to the Judeo-Christian, and by all means you can do so, but don't misconstrue this video or Michio Kaku's take on Pantheism. You have every right to believe as you wish, but I don't fear your god or any...just the Universe and it's infinity.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal, Michio is quoted over on the web site in the link (the video was shown in the link too) saying "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Well a quick ixquick search will show you that it's being picked up quite widely now. So if his name is attached to it and it's not true, he'll have to make a statement on it.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
No my reaction to the site is that it does not provide sources...this leads to suspect.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
Please, my mind is open. What you are asking me to do is close it into a tiny box called "The Holy Bible". No Thank You.
0
Reply
Male 1,801
Kal: It may not suggest a God to you, but a large part of the world would understand it to be such. Open your mind a little. Also what do you base your claim that the website is 'junk'? I suspect it's an emotional reaction
0
Reply
Male 1,679
And as @Jekyll pointed out below, that web site is junk.
0
Reply
Male 1,679
That in no way suggests a god and actually more suggests that the Universe as we see it may be the product of a higher intelligence/alien race.
0
Reply
Male 1,255
Helpful, @kalron27 - thanks.
0
Reply
Male 7,960
Pretty arrogant huh? Millions of gods throughout history and when someone says the word "god" he assumes they are talking about Jesus's dad.
0
Reply
Male 343
Much like Einstein's quote about God playing dice with the universe, I think this is poetic license.
0
Reply
Male 4,370
What an incredible mind.
0
Reply