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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

That's close the fallacy of composition - that fact that elements in the set of all things are conscious doesn't imply that the set of all things is conscious; but you avoid it by making an unjustified jump from consciousness being present in elements of the set, to consciousness as an emergent property of all things.

Either way, it's fallacious.

 

[RealityCheck01]

A voice of sanity emerges amidst the bedlam! He also wrote a book entitled "Is God a Mathematician?"

Looks like a bad and lying video

• Science by YouTube video.
• A 4 minute video announcing a world-shattering discovery.
• A description that hints at a lie.
  A force [a unified physical force] "that governs everything" is not God.
• Argument by authority - being important does not make a person correct.
• A lie about the book "Is God a Mathematician?" by Mario Livio.
• Lies about Michio Kaku having a theory about God.
  He has a opinion about God.
• A transcript on a crank web site (Ancients Code), e.g. ancient aliens.

View and read his opinion directly: Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician? has a transcript.

 

[Strathos]

Let me cut to the heart of the matter here.

Einstein was a pantheist. But why does that matter? And why would it matter if he had been a Christian, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, or anything else? Being a brilliant physicist didn't give him any special insight on religion. Just because he believed something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.

 

[Radrook]

Looks like a bad and lying video

• Science by YouTube video.
• A 4 minute video announcing a world-shattering discovery.
• A description that hints at a lie.
  A force [a unified physical force] "that governs everything" is not God.
• Argument by authority - being important does not make a person correct.
• A lie about the book "Is God a Mathematician?" by Mario Livio.
• Lies about Michio Kaku having a theory about God.
  He has a opinion about God.
• A transcript on a crank web site (Ancients Code), e.g. ancient aliens.

View and read his opinion directly: Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician? has a transcript.

I don't see ANYTHING in what you posted that disproves anything at all. All I see is YOU imposing your personal interpretations on what you read and view. Nothing more.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

I thought it was going towards you presenting evidence?

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is closed for review

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been through a clean.
Please consider the human propensity for flaming and goading adequately proven, and cease to provide further evidence.

(Evidence of the veracity of the wizard's first rule is also unnecessary).

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Radrook]

Let me cut to the heart of the matter here.

Einstein was a pantheist. But why does that matter? And why would it matter if he had been a Christian, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, or anything else? Being a brilliant physicist didn't give him any special insight on religion. Just because he believed something doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true.

True! However, atheists are very prone to claim that only the scientifically ignorant are the ones who believe in a creator. So examples to the contrary are occasionally used to disabuse them of such an illusion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

True! However, atheists are very prone to claim that only the scientifically ignorant are the ones who believe in a creator.

Very few atheists would make such a claim, but if you remove the words "only" and "are the ones who" from this sentence you're closer to the truth.

 

[Strathos]

True! However, atheists are very prone to claim that only the scientifically ignorant are the ones who believe in a creator. So examples to the contrary are occasionally used to disabuse them of such an illusion.

You can find tons of examples of scientists who are actually Christian, so I don't see the point of invoking a pantheist.

 

[Radrook]

You can find tons of examples of scientists who are actually Christian, so I don't see the point of invoking a pantheist.

I do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't see ANYTHING in what you posted that disproves anything at all. All I see is YOU imposing your personal interpretations on what you read and view. Nothing more.

Claiming an inability to see, is not a rebuttal

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True! However, atheists are very prone to claim that only the scientifically ignorant are the ones who believe in a creator.

Seeing how plenty of briliant scientists are also theists, clearly it isn't true that only the scientifically ignorant believe in a creator.

Nore have I ever seen atheists on this forum make such a claim.

Off course, it wouldn't be the first time that you throw around such accusations with no support for it whatsoever.

Anytime you wish to link to posts by atheists to support your claim....
But as usual, you will not do that. My theory on why you don't, is because you can't.

So examples to the contrary are occasionally used to disabuse them of such an illusion.

As it stands, the only illusion here, is what you think atheists say...

 

[Radrook]

Claiming an inability to see, is not a rebuttal

True.

 

[Radrook]

Seeing how plenty of briliant scientists are also theists, clearly it isn't true that only the scientifically ignorant believe in a creator.

Nore have I ever seen atheists on this forum make such a claim.

Off course, it wouldn't be the first time that you throw around such accusations with no support for it whatsoever.

Anytime you wish to link to posts by atheists to support your claim....
But as usual, you will not do that. My theory on why you don't, is because you can't.



As it stands, the only illusion here, is what you think atheists say...

It is done via insinuations and innuendoes and an occasional accusation of being ignorant of the scientific method and devaluation of any scientist that is cited as being uninformed or suiperstitious. I could have kept meticulous records of each instant that it occurred and I would have hundreds of examples, but I didn't. Neither am I inclined to begin backtracking through endless reams of posts in order to convince you of something that I am sure you are aware of already but prefer to squabble about just for the sake of squabbling.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is done via insinuations and innuendoes and an occasional accusation of being ignorant of the scientific method and devaluation of any scientist that is cited as being uninformed or suiperstitious.

In other words: it is just your opinion. You should not present your opinions as facts.

I could have kept meticulous records of each instant that it occurred and I would have hundreds of examples, but I didn't.

A single example will be fine. Since there are "hundreds", I'm sure you won't have any trouble finding one.

Neither am I inclined to begin backtracking through endless reams of posts in order to convince you of something that I am sure you are aware of already but prefer to squabble about just for the sake of squabbling.

Funny, how every single time you make accusations and are called out on them, you make up some excuse for why you feel like you shouldn't demonstrate your accusations.

Funny indeed.

 

[mnorian]

Mod hat on
Thread closed by OP request
Mod hat off​