World Renowned scientist claims to have found proof ‘GOD’ exists!

[Radrook]

A voice of sanity emerges amidst the bedlam! He also wrote a book entitled "Is God a Mathematician?" No blindness from this scientist!

 

[keith99]

While he has good credentials here is an excerpt from the WIKI on him

Kaku is most widely known as a popularizer of science [8] and physics outreach specialist. He has written books and appeared on many television programs as well as film. He also hosts a weekly radio program.

Better than usual, but not what what makes a world renowned scientist.

Also note the video always saus that Kaku said something or according to Kaku instead of actually quoting him. Alarm bells should be ringing!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A voice of sanity emerges amidst the bedlam! He also wrote a book entitled "Is God a Mathematician?" No blindness from this scientist!

[Staff Edit]

Sadly, you'll find that's based on a hoax started in Spain some years ago. There's also a quote of Kaku 'doing a Hawking' and saying that String Theory expresses the 'mind of God' or some such poesy. There's no 'proof of God' in string Theory and 'primitive semi-radius tachyons' is garbled gobbledegook - maybe from translation (Google translate?), or the snarXiv high-energy physics paper generator.

 

[DaisyDay]

Not really:

Michio Kaku: There is a website that quoted me incorrectly. That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. And the reference I saw said that I said that you can prove the existence of God. My point of view is different. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That’s called science. However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.

For example, look at reincarnation. If somebody at a cocktail party says that they are Cleopatra or Julius Caesar, how do you disprove that? How do you falsify that? Well, you ask some simple question and they get it wrong. Then you say, “Ha! I falsified your statement.” And they say, “No, the history books are wrong…How do I know the history books are wrong? Because I am Cleopatra. I am Julius Caesar.”

Source​

What a surprise.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Dr. Michio Kaku is a real scientist, a theoretical physicist and one of the guys who developed string theory. He's been around for awhile and written several books. He hasn't ever struck me as a pro-God sort, but not particularly anti-God either; more as an honest agnostic (really doesn't know).

I haven't read any of his late stuff. I keep hearing he is leaning more and more to the 'something approaching God' side of things. This is seen as treason by the hardcore anti-God folks. Go figure.

Looking at everything, I fail to see any 'proof' of God. I see many arguments for God and frankly, talk with Him all the time, so I cannot pretend to be 'neutral' in the matter.

Likewise there are many arguments against the existence of God. None very convincing to me, as all I've heard are based on 'not what I would do' and some misconceptions.

Dr. Kaku has probably found no 'proof' of God. No photographs, no fingerprints, no letters or files, and God has not appeared in a test tube or equation. However, Dr. Kaku - even though appearing on television - is not a flake who is totally unreliable. Or a snake oil salesmen like some of the 'ancient alien' promoters.

 

[Radrook]

[Staff Edit]

Sadly, you'll find that's based on a hoax started in Spain some years ago. There's also a quote of Kaku 'doing a Hawking' and saying that String Theory expresses the 'mind of God' or some such poesy. There's no 'proof of God' in string Theory and 'primitive semi-radius tachyons' is garbled gobbledegook - maybe from translation (Google translate?), or the snarXiv high-energy physics paper generator.

The article author is misinformed and confused. He briefly makes reference to a hoax mentions tachyons which the video nor Kaku spoke about. The rest is based on personal opinion, heresy and conjectures. There is a video Kaku made where he personally accepts the concept of a God. I will post it.

 

[John Hyperspace]

My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Depends on how you define "God"; to me the most telling thing a scientist (or, other, even religious/priest) can do is to fail to define the terms. This is why every time I see debates on the existence of God, I see that no one ever bothers to define the term. No one bothers with (or even understands) the very first step in logical discourse. That fact alone speaks volumes as to the abilities of the speakers to think critically, no matter their field of work.

If I sat down with Kaku, and he asked "Can you prove God exists?" I'd give him my definition of the term, and his only legitimate response could be "God exists"

Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That’s called science. However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.

That would also include the whole of theoretic science as well.

 

[SkyWriting]

While he has good credentials here is an excerpt from the WIKI on him



Better than usual, but not what what makes a world renowned scientist.

Yes, there is no better example of a "world renowned scientist."
He fits the definition perfectly.

 

[SkyWriting]

Looking at everything, I fail to see any 'proof' of God.

God is Spirit.
Science is not.
Proof is only found in Math, not science.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If I sat down with Kaku, and he asked "Can you prove God exists?" I'd give him my definition of the term, and his only legitimate response could be "God exists"

Are claiming you can prove that some sort of god exists?

Pretend I'm Michio Kaku. Give me your definition that would leave no choice but to respond "God exists"

 

[John Hyperspace]

Are claiming you can prove that some sort of god exists?

Sure. The idea is expressed by its definition; ease of proof is relative.

 

[Gene2memE]

Generally speaking proof by definition isn't really "proof" though, it's just sophistry.

What's your definition of God?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Sure. The idea is expressed by its definition; ease of proof is relative.

Go on, stun me.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Michio Kaku has great hair and looks great on TV. But he didn't say that stuff.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure. The idea is expressed by its definition; ease of proof is relative.

Ok. Lets have it.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Ok. Lets have it.

Can I first note what it says that you don't immediately understand where this is going? And ask, why do you think that is? I only say this because people seem to have a very difficult time understanding the linguistic concept of definition of terms. I'm not quite sure why that is, I suppose probably simply taking language (especially abstracts) for granted, presuming that every abstract word only ever means what they think it means to themselves. At any rate, it's a basic concept of both logic and reason, upon which all meaningful thought (or, ability to think meaningfully) is founded. It is the fact that most do not comprehend this basic understanding which allows me to discern that most people have not yet become able to accomplish even the most basic forms of meaningful thought.

Now, first suppose a sun worshipper says to you "God is the sun" - then you would understand (hopefully) that everyone is a theist in relation to his proposed deity, yes?

Suppose next a natural pantheist says to you "God is the sum of all natural processes" - then you understand by his definition, you are a theist in respect to his deity, yes?

Now, suppose I say "God is the sum of all consciousness". You are a theist then in regards to this definition, yes? God is proven relative to each definition.

Now suppose I define the "Biblical God" as "the sum of the transformative information conveyed through the words of the bible". Again, you see that I have proven God by definition. In fact, in all of these definitions, both atheism and agnosticism become impossibilities.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Can I first note what it says that you don't immediately understand where this is going? And ask, why do you think that is? I only say this because people seem to have a very difficult time understanding the linguistic concept of definition of terms. I'm not quite sure why that is, I suppose probably simply taking language (especially abstracts) for granted, presuming that every abstract word only ever means what they think it means to themselves. At any rate, it's a basic concept of both logic and reason, upon which all meaningful thought (or, ability to think meaningfully) is founded. It is the fact that most do not comprehend this basic understanding which allows me to discern that most people have not yet become able to accomplish even the most basic forms of meaningful thought.

Now, first suppose a sun worshipper says to you "God is the sun" - then you would understand (hopefully) that everyone is a theist in relation to his proposed deity, yes?

Suppose next a natural pantheist says to you "God is the sum of all natural processes" - then you understand by his definition, you are a theist in respect to his deity, yes?

Now, suppose I say "God is the sum of all consciousness". You are a theist then in regards to this definition, yes? God is proven relative to each definition.

Now suppose I define the "Biblical God" as "the sum of the transformative information conveyed through the words of the bible". Again, you see that I have proven God by definition. In fact, in all of these definitions, both atheism and agnosticism become impossibilities.

Nah, that's just begging the question. You haven't proven anything.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Nah, that's just begging the question. You haven't proven anything.

Begging the question means using your conclusion as a proposition. What I did was called defining the term.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Begging the question means using your conclusion as a proposition. What I did was called defining the term.

You defined the term relative to your conclusion = begging the question.

Your proposition fails on several counts. Firstly, we haven't agreed the definition is correct. Secondly, you haven't demonstrated the definition to be correct. You're just begging the question.

What I would be able to say is "According to your definition, God exists for you".

 

[John Hyperspace]

Have a quick look at the video in post #6 (which was coincidentally posted at the same time as mine) to help you to understand what "defining the term" means. It really is a very basic form of reason; so simple children can understand it.

You defined the term relative to your conclusion = begging the question.

That isn't begging the question; also, I have deduced no conclusion, simply defined a term.

Your proposition fails on several counts. Firstly, we haven't agreed the definition is correct. Secondly, you haven't demonstrated the definition to be correct. You're just begging the question.

Definitions of terms aren't open to being "disagreed" with. I'm sorry, and mean no offense; but I don't think I can help you since you seem to have no basic working of ability to comprehend simple logic. I would advise looking into the concept of "defining the term" for more information.