The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku claims to have developed a 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, one of the creators and developers of the revolutionary String Theory which is highly respected throughout the world.
http://zonnews.com/science/6484-scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists.html
To to come to his conclusions, the physicist made use of what he calls “primitive semi – radius tachyons “.
Tachyons are theoretical particles capable to “unstick ” the Universe matter or vacuum space between matter particles, leaving everything free from the influences of the surrounding universe.
After conducting the tests, Kaku came to the conclusion that we live in a “Matrix”.
“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.”
“To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
Originally posted by whodeyIt's pretty stupid that Christians bash scientists as deceitful idiots, until one agrees with their beliefs.
The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku claims to have developed a 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, one of the creators and developers of the revolutionary String Theory which is highly respected thro ...[text shortened]... h is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by vivifyEDIT: posting as response to whole thread, not just vivify's post.
It's pretty stupid that Christians bash scientists as deceitful idiots, until one agrees with their beliefs.
Indeed...
Except that he really isn't agreeing with their beliefs...
Unless their beliefs involve some intelligence or intelligences in some reality that created a computer
simulation run by a set of rules that was large and complex enough for [after a few billion years of
run-time] life to emerge inside it. And unless those beliefs also don't include any afterlife, and include
all the mythological aspects of all religions [including Christianity] being wrong.
As for creating a great stir... The ONLY places I have so far found reporting on this at all are Christian
websites... And while Michio Kaku is a big science promoter... He does have a tendency to say whacky
stuff from time to time when he strays outside his field... Holding beliefs on a number of subjects that
are not exactly mainstream. [I've watched a lot of science/tech/futurist programs to which he has
contributed and seen some flaws myself and read others more knowledgeable point out more]
Science not working on personal authority but evidence and reason, what any particular scientist believes
is irrelevant. What matters is what they can prove. Wake me when there is a consensus on this topic...
Which will not be for some time, because String Theory is a PROPOSED replacement for the standard
model... One of many, and it hasn't been validated by experimental observations, for all that it is popular.
So claiming that a scientist known for making occasionally whacky claims, thinks that a particular interpretation
of an unproven hypothesis might show evidence that the universe was created by some form of intelligence...
which would not be the god of the bible... or a god at all by my definition of the term... Based upon stories that
so far I can only find on Christian websites... With no salient details that would allow anyone to analyse this
and see if he is making any kind of sense... Is utterly unconvincing.
I do note that the Catholic reporting is at least honest enough to admit that he is not claiming this as evidence
for a Christian god.
http://www.catholic.org/news/technology/story.php?id=69335
Without getting into the physics, Kaku concludes that we live in a Matrix-style universe, created by an intelligence.
"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence", he said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."
So does this mean Kaku now believes in God? Yes and no. Nowhere does he endorse an particular religious philosophy. Instead, he may be referring to Spinosa's God, a sort of deification of the laws of the universe themselves. Einstein came to a similar conclusion.
Although they clearly miss the fact that if this was true it would actually be rather damning evidence against their
religion, as if such were needed.
Again, science, skepticism, and rationality explicitly does not function based on authority but on reason and
evidence. The day they can get excited about science confirming their gods existence is when there is a consensus
on the subject. When one person announces a non-peer-reviewed thought about the possible implications of an
unproven hypothesis that would contradict their religion anyway... Their excitement is premature.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by whodeyIf a genuine scientific consensus develops that we do indeed have evidence for the existence of a
So if scientists start coming out in droves saying that there is a God, will you then start to bash them?
god or gods then that would be the time to start paying attention.
However, this is one guy, before peer review, talking about the implications of an unproven hypothesis,
that if true would be evidence against the existence of the god and religion you happen to believe in.
That you, and all the Christian 'news' websites have jumped upon this while you denigrate all the real
proven science [like evolution, climate change, etc] because it doesn't fit your doctrine makes you
hypocrites.
If science isn't reliable in your minds when you don't like the results, then you don't get to use it to
support you if it happens to support you... not that this would even if it were true.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYeah, this is what I am talking about.
"The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to 10 thousand other neurons.
Sitting on your shoulders is the most complicated object in the known universe." ~Michio Kaku
It's pithy, while not being factually accurate.
The human brain has ~85 billion Neurons, and a number of species have larger
brains with many more. Including elephants and whales.
So the human brain is not the most complex type of brain, let alone most complex known object.
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeWho says I deny the science regarding evolution and climate change?
If a genuine scientific consensus develops that we do indeed have evidence for the existence of a
god or gods then that would be the time to start paying attention.
However, this is one guy, before peer review, talking about the implications of an unproven hypothesis,
that if true would be evidence against the existence of the god and religion you ...[text shortened]... se it to
support you if it happens to support you... not that this would even if it were true.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jun 16
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI said "LIKE evolution and climate change"... two areas where Christians and other theists
Who says I deny the science regarding evolution and climate change?
Stop putting words in my mouth.
frequently reject the well established scientific consensus.
I don't know if you personally reject either, while I have observed you to be hopelessly
ignorant and wrong about many science topics, I haven't kept track of where you deviate
from reality.
EDIT: remember I was talking both about you personally and the Christian 'news' sites in that sentence.
And they certainly do largely reject evolution, and often climate change, as well as other areas of science.
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo where exactly do I deviate from reality?
I said "LIKE evolution and climate change"... two areas where Christians and other theists
frequently reject the well established scientific consensus.
I don't know if you personally reject either, while I have observed you to be hopelessly
ignorant and wrong about many science topics, I haven't kept track of where you deviate
from reality.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jun 16
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhat part of "I don't keep track of where you deviate from reality" did you not understand??
So where exactly do I deviate from reality?
Try expressing some opinions about science/reality and I'll see where you go wrong.
It shouldn't take long.
EDIT: Or a better use of time might be for you to deal with the actual substance of this
thread and my/our replies to it. Rather than side track into a thread about what you
personally don't understand about reality.
For example, do you get why this [if true] would not be evidence for your god or religion?
Originally posted by googlefudgeHow quaint.
Yeah, this is what I am talking about.
It's pithy, while not being factually accurate.
The human brain has ~85 billion Neurons, and a number of species have larger
brains with many more. Including elephants and whales.
So the human brain is not the most complex type of brain, let alone most complex known object.
One of the self-described ambassadors of science here to correct others... gets it wrong.
In the process of embarrassing himself (itself? themself? x-self? so hard to keep up...), neglects to point out how the field of science has a hard time keeping it's own adhering to party lines.
Despite the research completed by Suzana Herculano-Houzel, the overwhelming majority of scienc-y sources are still reporting 100 billion neurons.
That most vaunted of sources for all things accurate, Wikipedia, has it at 86 billion--- so what's a billion when you're just throwing out numbers, right?
Who knows?
Maybe all the rest of the scienc-y types discount Herculano-Houze's work on account of the small, ageist, gender-biased sample group: how can four middle aged male brains represent all of the, um, human race, right?
Who's to say the souping of their brains didn't alter the neuron make-up somehow?
Who's to say how many neurons could be counted in a woman's brain soup?
So I guess there's very good reason for the rest of the scienc-y world to hold fast to that traditional number... except for Wikipedia, which has it at a billion more than Ms. Scienc-y it/her/his self, googlefudged.
Nice work, dipstick.
10 Jun 16
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo what is your opinion of the article?
How quaint.
One of the self-described ambassadors of science here to correct others... gets it wrong.
In the process of embarrassing himself (itself? themself? x-self? so hard to keep up...), neglects to point out how the field of science has a hard time keeping it's own adhering to party lines.
Despite the research completed by Suzana Herculano-Houz ...[text shortened]... has it at a billion more than Ms. Scienc-y it/her/his self, googlefudged.
Nice work, dipstick.
It would seem that "random chance" in evolution is but an illusion.