Love this guy!
http://zonnews.com/science-tech/6484-scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2016 10:23AM by koriwhore.

That article quotes Kaku thusly:

"“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.”

I'm calling bullshit. First, he can write without the gross grammar errors above. Second, he's made his "beliefs" clear through the years, and would never say something like that.

The atrocious grammar and spelling in this entire article smacks of stupid people making things up. I'll go check, but I'd bet real money this whole thing is made-up bullshit.

edit follow-up:

Kaku *has* said he believes the laws of physics were "shaped by a universal intelligence," though he calls that "mind of god" mathematics.
The rest of the quote I put above, and *every other one* in that article are made-up. Never said by Kaku.
He's also never claimed to even have any evidence of "god," let alone "definative (sic)" evidence or proof.

Once again, dishonest believers quote-mine and lie to try and convince people their delusional belief is justifiable by some famous scientist. Happens all the time. In fact, it happened on this board recently (and repeatedly). Now, who was it who was doing that...?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2016 10:36AM by ificouldhietokolob.

If thats me you are calling a 'believer' I am in good company with Sagan, Kaku and Einstein.

"Second, he's made his "beliefs" clear through the years, and would never say something like that."

While I agree with you that it's likely BS considering there is no citation to a source, if he's a good scientist he will update his beliefs with new evidence, so to claim that he would "never" say something like this is probably not accurate.

Remember, only Sith deal in absolutes. :)

I should clarify, while the article linked here does cite a source, what appears to be the original article does not cite a source.

"Remember, only Sith deal in absolutes."

Which is itself an absolute. Oops :)

"Beliefs" aren't built on evidence. Or at least they don't have to be. A scientist updates his knowledge based on evidence -- not his beliefs.

Same old/ same old.

"It's all to complicated and speshul to have happened by chance."

This is opinion not evidence of any kind, especially of the definitive variety.

http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/

The above link is the source for the zonnews article.

What primitive tachyons? What tests with these tachyons?

Could this be the ghawd of the Bell Shaped Curve? Or the ghawd of 50/50 coin flip?

I went to the source link at the bottom of the article.

The text was the same. But it allowed me to access the youtube video included in the article.

And in the video, Kaku said NOTHING like what is in the print.

What he did say, which I think is cool - is that whatever it is that we call God is a mathematician playing music across 11 super dimensional strings and that our Universe is a vibration of those strings.

He never claimed to define, beyond a concept, what God is.

He is simply in love with the mathematical organization of the Universe. And I think that's pretty damn cool.

Thanks. That's a different kettle of fish altogether.

I'll add my thanks, I don't have time while I'm at work to research things like this.

Makes you wonder how one ex-mormon can expect other ex-mormons to take his word/interpretation/POV as 'gospel'...

"Because I say so!" does not seem like the appropriate game plan here.

More articles on Zonnews (the website where this was found):

- "Prophecies of Nostradamus for 2016: 'A great war and the death of the rich'" (translated from Spanish)
- "Akhenaten: the extraterrestrial Pharaoh?" (ditto)
- "70 YEAR OLD PROPHECI [sic]: The Earth Will Soon Be Swept By Extraordinary Rapid Waves of Cosmic Electricity"

In short, I would take this article with quite a few grains of salt.

In the video, he said that God might be a mathematician, because of supersymmetry. That's speculation about God's nature, not "definative [sic] evidence of God".

I can't believe Snopes actually wasted its time debunking this absurdness:

http://www.snopes.com/fallen-angel/

"The answer could be, God is a mathematician. In fact, we believe we have a good candidate for the mind of god, cosmic music, vibrating strings, resolating through the 11 dimensions of hyper space. That is the mind of god." Kaku
Im with Kaku and Sagan,
Yes I believe in god, if by the word 'god' you mean the immutable laws that govern the universe."
If that makes me a theist, then I am in good company with Kaku, Dawkins, Sagan, Einstein, Aurelius, Epicurous, and Lao Tzu.

The fact that you don't recognize that Einstein is literally saying that he doesn't believe in god in that quote is a bit frustrating.

Yes, I believe in carrots, if by carrots you mean onions.

"Prof Dawkins said that he was '6.9 out of seven' sure of his beliefs.

“'I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,' he added."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html




"'I am agnostic,' he later quips, 'to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.'"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201202/why-does-richard-dawkins-take-issue-agnosticism

Why exactly is it so important to you to have your beliefs validated by a bunch of random scientists? You do realize that there are other, extremely qualified scientists out there that have a wide variety of beliefs. Some are atheist, some are theists, some believe in Christianity, others Islam, others completely different things.

You keep insisting that because there are popular scientists that have made vague (often out of context) comments about "god" that your beliefs are somehow more valid... Which isn't true. It's the definition of an appeal to authority fallacy.

If you want to believe that the fundamental laws of the universe are somehow "god" (personally, I think that's silly, the fundamental laws of the universe don't require your belief), go right on ahead, just don't expect anyone here to follow along.

What FF said.

+1

+1

+10

+13

I got rid of most of my print books, but one that I kept on the shelf was "Why People Believe Weird Things", by Michael Shermer.
This discussion made me pull it off the shelf yet again. I highly recommend it!

http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893?ie=UTF8&keywords=why%20people%20believe%20weird%20things&qid=1465484538&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

Why exactly is it so important to you to have your beliefs validated by a bunch of random scientists? You do realize that there are other, extremely qualified scientists out there that have a wide variety of beliefs. Some are atheist, some are theists, some believe in Christianity, others Islam, others completely different things.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It's not just scientists, the sapient homo sapiens I respect most, Socrates, Democritus, Epicurus, Aurelius, Lao Tzu, Confuscious, Buddha, DaVinci, Cheif Sealth, Einstein, Sagan, Kaku and Tyson, all believed in the same God as me, "the immutable laws that govern and animate the universe."

I'm not sure what scientists you're talking about, but even Richard Dawkins admits to believing in Einstein's God. So do I, except the God I believe in does play dice with the universe on the quantum level all the time. Look at the Higgs Boson, (God Particle, minus the particle, since it's more of a field) creating ghost particles and gluons, quarks and leptons, out of energy, which form the basis of all matter. We found the creator when we found the God Particle, minus the particle.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You keep insisting that because there are popular scientists that have made vague (often out of context) comments about "god" that your beliefs are somehow more valid... Which isn't true. It's the definition of an appeal to authority fallacy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm just pushing back against the hostility of ExMo's towards any discussion of the word, 'God' as meaningless.
I respect Atheists, I'm just with Einstein, Sagan, NdGT, Sam Harris and Bill Nye, it's kind of absurd to claim you know so much about the Universe, that you can rule out the existence of God, when 95% of the Universe is an unexplainable mystery scientists have only recently discovered, called, "dark Matter/Energy" When not even the best scientists in the world can speculate on the nature of the vast majority of the universe.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you want to believe that the fundamental laws of the universe are somehow "god" (personally, I think that's silly, the fundamental laws of the universe don't require your belief), go right on ahead, just don't expect anyone here to follow along.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't expect anybody to 'follow along'.
This is a public forum for the discussion of ideas, by ExMormons. These are just ideas. God is just a word.
To say it doesn't exist and that it's meaningless is what's absurd, given the fact that most people believe in God, it's on every dollar bill you've ever spent or received, it's in our pledge of allegiance and our National Anthem, and that's not about to change.
I think it's best for me to take the attitude of Einstein, Sagan, Bill Nye and NdGT, "An Atheist would have to know far more about the Cosmos than me." Sagan

So...

Even more appeals to authority, which don't make your claims more valid or true. I especially love the part where you believe the same "God" as Dawkins (he doesn't believe in any God btw) except that yours is totally different... So... not the same God at all.

You also still don't understand atheists. I haven't seen anyone here claim that a discussion about God is meaningless. Due to the number of people who believe in something and the power that those people hold means that it does have meaning. It's just that not everyone believes in God and there isn't any real evidence to suggest that there is a reason to believe in a God. Even your sudo physics God that somehow takes an active role doesn't require your belief. Physics works whether you believe or not.

Also, just because something is printed on money doesn't make it real. There's also a pyramid with an all seeing eye, is that real and worthy of your belief/discussion? Santa is believed in by thousands of people, does that make him real? No. Worthy of discussion, maybe, but not real.

And you do seem to want validation for your beliefs. Even when people point out that your taking what these people have said out of context or are out right misquoting them, you still insist that they believe in God, your God specifically. I'll say again, if you want to believe what you state, great, but we don't have to and whatever ANY random scientist(the ones you list or otherwise) believes doesn't have any bearing on your beliefs at all.

Rabbi found definitive evidence of God by how well our ears are engineered and how that connects us to our world and for learning and growing as human beings.

Only God could engineer something so perfectly formed and intricate as the inner workings of the ear, according to my rabbi. That was proof to him of a God, who could design something so extraordinary from nothingness.

Albert Einstein was no atheist. He got into arguments routinely with Max Born, my cousin, as both men grew up Jewish and both believed in God all their lives. Einstein's view of God was that he was in control of the Universe including what happened on earth. Whereas Born believed though God created it all, he kept us at a distance and let the chips fall where they may in the affairs of humankind.

Only Born renounced his Jewish faith, and converted to Christianity as a ruse to fool his oppressors the Nazis. Assimilation was something German Jews did often during that era, in vain, to escape the Holocaust. For Born, moving to England in 1933 is what saved his life, not converting to Christianity.

He was, according to his son, always more of a Deist than he was a Christian. Einstein always held to his Jewish beliefs even though he wasn't a practicing Jew. It is Jewish to question God and existence. He did not denounce or deny God and glorified God in the work that he did, with the exception of coming up with the equation for the Atom Bomb. That was the greatest regret of his life.

They still got into some great heated arguments over which God was the correct one, Einstein's or Born's? Neither side won, it was a running debate over the course of their lifetime. The men were more like brothers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2016 09:07PM by Amyjo.

Okay, you made Kori look a little better, or at least took some of the pressure off him, and for that I'm sure many people are grateful. Even my cousins, Evita Peron and Salvador Dali, would have agreed on this.

No way !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Evita and Salvidor ARE MY COUSINS... talk about a small world.

You know if we got together and checked out our genealogy, I bet we'd find even more cousins!!!!!!! Yay. Its sort of a cousin filled world. All those cousins out there waiting to be claimed and named... RIGHT HERE ON RFM!!!!!!
HOLY DNA OLDDOG.

So many cousins, so little time!

I would want to know if you realize that in demanding an alignment of science to faith, that it is demanding proof of (a) god.

If you have faith (belief without evidence) that there is a god you want to worship, fine by me. If you claim to have evidence of god, then there is no need of faith. I guess the simple respect I ask is that you not put them both on the same ticket and call it reason.

The ideas you propose sound very similar to those of Deepak Chopra. You should hear him try to explain quantum theory - he was all over the map. For fun, I diagrammed the elements of about two minutes of his speech, and it became impossible to tie them together. It was a hodgepodge of bullshit, but to the naive, I understood how seductive it might be. One of his claims was that "science" stole "his" word, "quantum." Yes, he must have invented it, folks, because they took it from him, and use it wrongly. HE can tell you what it means, though. For a bucket of cash, he will be your master of the god of the gaps.

Don't become a Deepak, please. Out of one cult and into another.

I've found definitive evidence of dog in my back yard.

Typical koriwhore mamba-ja-hamba.

If you're going to appeal to authority, at least do the due diligence of identifying someone who actually said what you claim they said. LOL!!

Dear Elderdog;

1985. Upper West Side of NYC. Doing my laundry at the local laundromat/dry cleaning shop. In walked an older fellow to pick up his dry cleaning. He was accompanied by what appeared to be a nurse/helper.

Dry cleaning lady asked "What's your name?"

"Salvador Dali!"

And by god, it was.

The mustache, did he have the mustache?!

Please, someone, put this thread out of its misery!

Think of the children. . .