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

[Radrook]

It doesn't bother me that there are world-renowned scientists that believe in God, and it's quite possible that Kaku believes in a God of sorts - it would probably be the Spinozan nature-as-God - but when people try to claim that he's said so, when it seems pretty clear that he's not inclined to make an explicit public statement of what he believes, I think he's entitled to have those claims challenged.

As usual, other readers of the forum can make up their own minds by watching the videos and reading the posts.

I see no ambiguity in his statements.

 

[John Hyperspace]

No. I accept the sun exists. To be a theist in context of this proposed deity, I'ld have to accept that the sun is a god. I'ld have to believe something extra concerning the nature of the sun.

I'll respond to this and see if you're able to comprehend defining terms or not. You see where you say "I'd have to accept that the sun is a god"? What you're not realizing is that your use of the word 'god' isn't being defined even by your own self, the one using the word. So when you so "is a god" we don't even really know what you're saying.

But what you are really doing is attempting to supersede everyone else's definitions with your own (which you haven't actually defined, but which I would propose is the definition of 'god' that Christianity has defined for you, and now they have put a definition into your head and you now are only able to think in linear fashion according to the way Christianity has taught you)

However, this is not what "defining a term" means. If a man point at a rock and say "I define 'god' as a rock" then his definition is what he is meaning when he says the word 'god': in his definition, 'god' does not mean 'an omnipotent man who lives in the sky and made the universe from nothing' it simply means 'rock': and you would be a theist in regards to his 'god' unless you wished to deny that 'rock' exists, in which case you would be ignorant beyond help.

I can call a chair a table any day of the week, but a chair will just be a chair - its nature doesn't change merely by giving it a different name.

No, if you started calling chairs "tables" then things with four legs that you sat on would be "tables": if you said to someone "pass me a table to sit on", as long as they understood your definition they would hand you the thing formerly called a "chair". Can you comprehend the idea of definitions now? Do you think a dictionary is a huge book of silly word games? Do you think definitions used in science are silly word games? Do you think Kaku is using "silly word games" when in post #6 when asked about the existence of 'God' he speaks about, "How do you define the term"? Can you begin to understand?

 

[John Hyperspace]

Can you point out this basic reasoning for us?

Defining terms is the basic reasoning that is very difficult for a great many to understand; and by not understanding the idea, they cannot even reason with basic efficiency or meaningfulness.

 

[Loudmouth]

However, this is not what "defining a term" means. If a man point at a rock and say "I define 'god' as a rock" then his definition is what he is meaning when he says the word 'god': in his definition, 'god' does not mean 'an omnipotent man who lives in the sky and made the universe from nothing' it simply means 'rock': and you would be a theist in regards to his 'god' unless you wished to deny that 'rock' exists, in which case you would be ignorant beyond help.

The contention in the opening post is that Michio Kaku is referring to a deity. Obviously, this isn't the case.

 

[John Hyperspace]

The contention in the opening post is that Michio Kaku is referring to a deity. Obviously, this isn't the case.

Try again to understand that when you say 'a deity' the word 'deity' is an abstraction, okay? It has no meaning except that which is attached to it by the speaker. Do you understand? This is how words work. Let me illustrate this in the simplest way I can (I presume you comprehend basic 'variables', yes?):

X = ?

The above illustrates the abstract word with X. Now, we do not have a definition of X. Whatever is placed into the ? by the speaker is the definition of X; so if I would say to you "Time exists" then "X exists" is my proposition. Now you would need to ask "What is your definition of X(Time)?" and then suppose I reply "Motion", so now we have:

X = Motion

It is that simple. So now you know that when I use the word "Time" I am refering to the physical process of motion. Now we can discuss "time" in a meaningful way because we both understand it is simply an abstraction for "motion" according to the way the speaker is defining the term. Now, if you were to say "time is not motion" you would be guilty of equivocating. What is happening in this process is that you - a different speaker - has a different definition of "time" which is causing you to engage in a communication breakdown where the above becomes a conflict of understanding. Suppose then that you define "time" as "space" (an illustration):

X = Space

Now, you are not comprehending the process of definition of terms, and so your mind is struggling with you inserting your own definition into the variable X that the speaker is defining, so it looks like this (following from the speakers 'X = Motion' and your 'X = Space':

Space = Motion

Now in your mind you are perceiving a 'silly word game' but your perception is a result of your inability to comprehend the liguistic function of defining terms. So your mind is creating a falsely perceived context in which 'my definition of X != his definition of X: and so he is playing a silly word game': BUT, if you understood the basic process of definition of terms, you would understand that X has no definition until it is defined by the one proposing the thought; it is nothing more than a definition of term which provides defining of a term being evaluated by the speaker, and allowing both of you to be on the same page while discussing the concept. Can you understand?

So the basic problem is that you have had the term 'God' defined by others as 'man who lives in the sky and makes the universe' and so now, in your mind, you have been trained to attach the concept 'man who lives in the sky' to the abstraction of the word 'God' so when someone says "Define 'God'" in your untrained mind the request becomes "Define 'man who lives in the sky'" but it should not be understood this way: the request should be understood as "Define 'UNKNOWN ABSTRACTION'". But since you're not comprehending the basic process of defining terms, then when I define "UNKNOWN ABSTRACTION (i.e. 'God')" as "Sum of Consciousness" then in your mind it becomes:

"Man who lives in sky = Sum of consciousness" and your mind struggles with the statement; when in fact to the understanding mind the statement is "UNKNOWN VARIABLE = Sum of consciousness": are you understanding?

 

[SkyWriting]

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

This is true. But God has no problem proving
His own existence when one is ready to start
the conversation correctly.

 

[Loudmouth]

So the basic problem is that you have had the term 'God' defined by others as 'man who lives in the sky and makes the universe' and so now, in your mind, you have been trained to attach the concept 'man who lives in the sky' to the abstraction of the word 'God' so when someone says "Define 'God'" in your untrained mind the request becomes "Define 'man who lives in the sky'" but it should not be understood this way: the request should be understood as "Define 'UNKNOWN ABSTRACTION'". But since you're not comprehending the basic process of defining terms, then when I define "UNKNOWN ABSTRACTION (i.e. 'God')" as "Sum of Consciousness" then in your mind it becomes:

"Man who lives in sky = Sum of consciousness" and your mind struggles with the statement; when in fact to the understanding mind the statement is "UNKNOWN VARIABLE = Sum of consciousness": are you understanding?

I think you have me confused with the person who wrote the opening post. I don't automatically think of "God" as defined as "man who lives in the sky and makes the universe". I know there are a lot of different definitions for God, running the gamut from mindless nature to a creator deity. However, Radrook doesn't seem to understand that there is more than one definition. Radrook saw "God" and automatically jumped to the conclusion Michio Kaku had found evidence for the creator deity that Radrook believes in.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is true. But God has no problem proving
His own existence when one is ready to start
the conversation correctly.

And the correct way would be . . .

 

[Radrook]

I am understanding that you believe I am utterly confused when I am not.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I think you have me confused with the person who wrote the opening post. I don't automatically think of "God" as defined as "man who lives in the sky and makes the universe". I know there are a lot of different definitions for God, running the gamut from mindless nature to a creator deity. However, Radrook doesn't seem to understand that there is more than one definition. Radrook saw "God" and automatically jumped to the conclusion Michio Kaku had found evidence for the creator deity that Radrook believes in.

Okay perhaps so, but you are also doing the same in using the word 'deity' as a point of 'contention': the 'God' being defined by Kaku may or may not be 'deity' depending on how the term 'deity' is being defined. If 'deity' is meaning 'source and sustainor of all things' then the 'God' as defined by Kaku is 'deity' just as the 'God' of natural pantheism is the pantheistic 'source and sustainor of all things'

Now in this definition be very clear to comprehend one very important thing: consciousness is a function which exists among the set of "all things", yes? Thus when dealing with full set of "all things" we cannot forget that consciousness is present. So Kaku's 'God' would have consciousness since that is an emergent property of all things.

Now, obviously this depends on how Kaku is defining his terms, and the video doesn't go into the fullness of it; but it is not possible given the information to determine whether or not Kaku is referring to a conscious God.

At any rate, what I am getting at is the process of defining terms so that we can actually engage in a meaningful evaluation of the question "Does 'God' exist?" since that is the question I was asked to demonstrate in the positive.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am understanding that you believe I am utterly confused when I am not.

Seems to me that Kaku accepts a definition of god that is best described as mindless chemicals following natural laws in a deterministic way.

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay perhaps so, but you are also doing the same in using the word 'deity' as a point of 'contention': the 'God' being defined by Kaku may or may not be 'deity' depending on how the term 'deity' is being defined.

Kaku doesn't use the word deity, but he does differentiate between what I define as "deity" and "non-deity".

"Personally, I think there's much wisdom in the God of Einstein. Einstein basically said that there are two types of gods. One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That's the first god. But there's another god, and that's the god of Spinoza. That's the god of beauty, harmony, and simplicity."
Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery | Innovation Tech Today

If you want, we can define "deity" as "personal god".

Now in this definition be very clear to comprehend one very important thing: consciousness is a function which exists among the set of "all things", yes? Thus when dealing with full set of "all things" we cannot forget that consciousness is present. So Kaku's 'God' would have consciousness since that is an emergent property of all things.

Consciousness is an emergent property of all things, which means that consciousness can not be the origin of all things. Kaku goes on to explain how God is a set of equations.

 

[bhsmte]

This is true. But God has no problem proving
His own existence when one is ready to start
the conversation correctly.

Translation: when one already believes in a God.

 

[Radrook]

I think you have me confused with the person who wrote the opening post. I don't automatically think of "God" as defined as "man who lives in the sky and makes the universe". I know there are a lot of different definitions for God, running the gamut from mindless nature to a creator deity. However, Radrook doesn't seem to understand that there is more than one definition. Radrook saw "God" and automatically jumped to the conclusion Michio Kaku had found evidence for the creator deity that Radrook believes in.

Clarification:

1. I don't believe that God is a man living in Earth's sky or even in outer space proper.

2. I never said that Maku has the identical concept of God that Christians have.

3. I don't believe that there is just one definition of God.

[Staff edit].

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'll respond to this and see if you're able to comprehend defining terms or not. You see where you say "I'd have to accept that the sun is a god"? What you're not realizing is that your use of the word 'god' isn't being defined even by your own self, the one using the word. So when you so "is a god" we don't even really know what you're saying.

But what you are really doing is attempting to supersede everyone else's definitions with your own (which you haven't actually defined, but which I would propose is the definition of 'god' that Christianity has defined for you, and now they have put a definition into your head and you now are only able to think in linear fashion according to the way Christianity has taught you)

However, this is not what "defining a term" means. If a man point at a rock and say "I define 'god' as a rock" then his definition is what he is meaning when he says the word 'god': in his definition, 'god' does not mean 'an omnipotent man who lives in the sky and made the universe from nothing' it simply means 'rock': and you would be a theist in regards to his 'god' unless you wished to deny that 'rock' exists, in which case you would be ignorant beyond help.

I didn't define anything. I'm just responding to someone else's claim.

The sun is a gigantic ball of nuclear fire, held together by gravity. That's what it is. If some guy then states that this thing is also a god, then that guy is adding something extra to the sun. To accept the claim that the sun is a god, no matter what a god is, I'ld have to thus accept that this ball of nuclear fire has the required additional attributes to qualify as being a "god". Whatever those attributes are or however this god is defined is irrelevant in context of the this point being made, which is that I would thus have to believe additional things about the nature of the sun, in order to accept the claim that the sun is a god.

If in this example, the word "god" doesn't mean anything differently then what we currently understand by "sun"... then you're just substituting words without any additional value or merrit. Then all stars are gods as well.

And we're back to the chair / table analogy....

No, if you started calling chairs "tables" then things with four legs that you sat on would be "tables": if you said to someone "pass me a table to sit on", as long as they understood your definition they would hand you the thing formerly called a "chair".

And the nature of what a chair is (or was) wouldn't have changed.
It's just a label. To swap it with an other label, does nothing.

Can you comprehend the idea of definitions now?

Do you comprehend the total futility of your argument?
Do you also comprehend that we already have a word for sun? It's "sun".

 

[Radrook]

This is true. But God has no problem proving
His own existence when one is ready to start
the conversation correctly.

Even if millions of stars would suddenly converge and spell out the entire first chapter of Genesis, atheist astronomers would glibly dismiss it all as a mere gravitational anomaly.

BTW
Of course others might become violently ill or have a nervous breakdown. That too is possible.

 

[Strathos]

[Staff edit].

If you want an actually convincing argument from an educated person (in this case, a mathematician) for the existence of God, try this one.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'll respond to this and see if you're able to comprehend defining terms or not.

You haven't defined what you mean by comprehend. Do you mean a simple understanding of the word in English or do you mean having a full grasp of the cultural baggage attached to the word?

You see where you say "I'd have to accept that the sun is a god"? What you're not realizing is that your use of the word 'god' isn't being defined even by your own self, the one using the word.

You haven't defined what you mean by self.

But what you are really doing is attempting to supersede everyone else's definitions with your own (which you haven't actually defined,

Whom do you mean by "everyone else"?

Most of us are happy that we have a good enough grasp of abstract concepts that the exact details either add nothing germane or are easily derived from context or other knowledge about the interlocutor. Where there is ambiguity we tend to ask for clarity. You take things too far.

Can you understand that defining the terms is not the be all and end all of discussion? It's really only necessary for:
a) formal debates
b) clarifying points which make a pertinent difference
[Staff edit].

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If you want an actually convincing argument from an educated person (in this case, a mathematician) for the existence of God, try this one.

Huh? Nowhere in the article does he deal with its title - "Why does God exist?" A quick summary of the article is "Truth would not exist without God." So what? That is not an answer to the question he asked himself...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

[Staff edit].

And I'm not interested in his line "This I believe explains why God exists..." because what he's referring to is an explanation of what he thinks God is, not why God exists.