Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is nothing in your term which is self-evident, thus it is only your conclusion which makes it correct.
Sorry, but you don't get to dictate definitions. If I find your definition to be erroneous I am under no obligation to accept it. You're just playing word games, and not doing a very good job of it.
I understand perfectly well and I've already shown the error of your "basic reason". Defining the term simply means giving a definition you want to work with. While it is a great idea and may provide a basis for you to hang an argument or proposition on, it does not mean the definition is necessarily valid and it does not mean I cannot disagree with it.
You posted the wrong video - in that video Kaku very carefully says nothing at all about his own beliefs, he only describes Einstein's belief. He says Einstein had 'a hard time' believing in the god of intervention, the personal god, the god of prayer, the god that parts the waters, listens to all our prayers, and smites the Philistines; rather, Einstein believed in the god of order, harmony, beauty, simplicity, and elegance; the god of Spinoza (i.e. nature).
I think you're reading something into what he says that isn't there. He doesn't say what he believes - the closest he gets is 'how we physicists view things' when talking about the need to be scientific and define what they mean by god. From that point on, he use Einstein's beliefs as an example.
He could easily have said in response to her question that he is an atheist but chose to quote Einstein's concept of God instead as a response to the question on whether he believed. The conclusion is as clear as ice crystals on the tip of an aquiline nose on a sunny Sunday winter morning!
In exactly the same way that "chairs" become non-existant when we start calling them "toilets" instead.
The god of Spinoza is very different from the type of god you are trying to make it seem that Kaku believes in. It is in fact so far removed from the type of god that you believe in, that we might just as well call Kaku and Einstein atheists in this context.
I did see another quote where he's clearer about the meaning of God to String Theorists (of which he's a leading light) - he doesn't directly state his beliefs, but using Einstein as an example again, he says that Einstein's 'mind of God' would be the 'cosmic music' of the vibrations of the strings that make up the universe:
I have to agree, at least as far the secular world is concerned. And I'm quite familiar with both collection, collation and presentation of evidence and the concept of "proof". At the same time, God has established His existence to me ("proof" if you will) past any shadow of doubt.
“I work in something called String Theory which makes the statement that we are reading the mind of God. … We physicists are the only scientists who can say the word “God” and not blush,”
If I had that absolutely no evidence in nature perspective that you have I would choose to be an atheist because it would be the far more logical choice. Actually, the Bible doesn't share your perspective of absolutely no evidence in nature idea. It holds just the opposite.
