1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Jun '16 01:431 edit
    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.”
  2. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    10 Jun '16 01:47
    "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
  3. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    10 Jun '16 02:06
    Originally posted by whodey
    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.”
    It's pretty stupid that Christians bash scientists as deceitful idiots, until one agrees with their beliefs.
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Jun '16 02:372 edits
    Originally posted by vivify
    It's pretty stupid that Christians bash scientists as deceitful idiots, until one agrees with their beliefs.
    EDIT: posting as response to whole thread, not just vivify's post.

    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.
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Jun '16 02:41
    Originally posted by vivify
    It's pretty stupid that Christians bash scientists as deceitful idiots, until one agrees with their beliefs.
    So if scientists start coming out in droves saying that there is a God, will you then start to bash them?
  6. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Jun '16 02:49
    Originally posted by whodey
    So if scientists start coming out in droves saying that there is a God, will you then start to bash them?
    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 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.
  7. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Jun '16 02:54
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    "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
    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.
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Jun '16 03:02
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    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.
    Who says I deny the science regarding evolution and climate change?

    Stop putting words in my mouth.
  9. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Jun '16 03:051 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Who says I deny the science regarding evolution and climate change?

    Stop putting words in my mouth.
    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.

    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. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    10 Jun '16 03:061 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Who says I deny the science regarding evolution and climate change?

    Stop putting words in my mouth.
    Wait...so you accept the science that says humans share biological ancestry with apes?
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Jun '16 03:07
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    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.
    So where exactly do I deviate from reality?
  12. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Jun '16 03:091 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    So where exactly do I deviate from reality?
    What part of "I don't keep track of where you deviate from reality" did you not understand??

    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?
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Jun '16 03:18
    Originally posted by vivify
    Wait...so you accept the science that says humans share biological ancestry with apes?
    I believe that humanoid creatures evolved by God over time and then breathed a life spirit into what we call humans today.
  14. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    10 Jun '16 04:16
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    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.
    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-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.
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Jun '16 10:24
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    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.
    So what is your opinion of the article?

    It would seem that "random chance" in evolution is but an illusion.
Back to Top