Scientist says he found definitive proof that God exists.
- Thread starter CAJUNEER_rivals
- Start date
Yes.....I have believed that for a long time. And yes.....evolution can still be a part of the overall picture. And yes.....what is called religion can also be a part of the big picture.
Your headline implies there was a new scientific discovery rather than a years old Big Think piece by Michio Kaku.
He doesn't say in that video anything like what they say he says in the text. They must have mixed up videos, assuming they're not flat out trying to deceive the reader.
Physicists sometimes use the word "God" in different ways and it's not clear how Kaku means it in that video but if you take it to literally mean God then the thing to do would be to trade in your Holy Books for math books.
Last edited:
One can always tell when you feel threatened. You spew strings of nonsense. First, it's not my headline. Second, it is new research. Third, there is nothing deceptive about the piece. Fouth, it is clear how Kaku means God--an intelligent Designer. Fifth, mathematics helps explain how. The Bible explains why.
Did you watch the video? He does not say what they say he said in the text nor does he say what you quoted him as saying in your post. Nor does the title of your post reflect anything said in the video. If you're going to post a video of someone then at least watch the video first.
Pretend for a minute it did though. Pretend the video was of a scientist saying he had proven the existence of God. Unless he can convince other scientists that he has proof, so what?
I seen plenty of video of Michio Kaku. I don't know what he believes about God but I've never gotten the impression he believes in God in the way religious people. But maybe he does. I don't know. What I do know is that he's a good science communicator and if you want to learn about science then watching him is good. That video is good. Watch it.
Last edited:
The video just serves as an introduction to Kaku. CNN posts videos with articles often where the video just serves to introduce the subject or topic and doesn't address the headline. The article itself is clear. The point you're attempting to make about the video not addressing the issue in the title is nonsense. The article clearly does.
Why would I pretend anything about the video? The article is what the title is addressing. Certainly all research require peer review. But upon review Kaku will be validated in all likelihood. He's not given to speaking beyond his knowledge.
It is clear how he is defining God: an intelligent Designer. The foundations of your worldview are crumbling, opie, and you're not taking it well.
One guy crumbles the foundation of his worldview? Nah, he can just use the global warming hoax blueprint and dismiss him. Science is good when it proves there is a God I guess.
Science is good when it is science. It's not so good when it's a political tool. its not about the one guy. It's about the facts.
You should have known what was going to happen. You should keep in mind that we have several narrow minded and shallow thinkers on this board.
When I get a link to a video and an article I assume the video is relevant. Okay, maybe it's not this time, in which case a "Ignore the video and only read the article" heads up would have been nice.
The article just has some quotes. It doesn't say where or when they came from. A quick google search seems to indicate that this is from a few years ago. So where is this validation? And why are the mentions when I google it on non-science webistes?
This is just one more example of people trying to get support for their God belief because of something a scientist says. Most scientists don't believe in God but some do and the ones that do have varying ranges of belief on what it is. So what? The nature of science is such that questions like God existence can't be addressed.
If an Intelligent Designer designed the Universe then who designed the Intelligent Designer? If the Intelligent Designer didn't need a designer then why did the Universe need a designer? It's all just philosophy, which can be fun to banter back and forth about sometimes, but it's not science.
So in the same thread you're saying both that scientists believe God is proven to exist but that climate change is not proven. You're really covering all your tin foil hat bases.
“To me it is clear that we exists (sic) in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
It's called science. Scientific principles and laws are just what they are, rules and principles that everything functions by, not necessarily made by a "higher intelligence". You can't wish or pray or meditate or hope to overcome or contradict them. Velocity will always equal the distance traveled divided by the time it took to travel that distance.
It's called science. Scientific principles and laws are just what they are, rules and principles that everything functions by, not necessarily made by a "higher intelligence". You can't wish or pray or meditate or hope to overcome or contradict them. Velocity will always equal the distance traveled divided by the time it took to travel that distance.
I don't think most average intelligent people need a disclaimer for the video. They'll quickly figure it out.
This is an example of science once again affirming intelligent design. You have absolutely no proof most scientists are atheists.
The First Cause must be greater than what follows. As the First Cause God is not subject to the limits of the time, space, and matter He created. In what case is a creator limited by what he creates?
You're missing the distinguishing phrase: not by chance. Science from an atheistic point of view says the arrangement of the universe is by chance. The laws themselves are by chance. If not by chance then the universe must be arranged by design. If by design then there must be a Designer.
Intelligent designer, and the God proposed by religion may not be the same thing.
I'm going by polls as far as scientists believing in God. You can google them.
Your last paragraph is special pleading.
Believe if you like, that's fine, but don't hold your breath waiting for science to confirm the supernatural because that's not the kind of thing it does.
We certainly do. We actually have people that are convinced that they know things that nobody knows and there's no way to convince them otherwise.
That's true. The existence of God is a different question from the identity of God.
Exactly......if you this reply to cajuns post it may explain it a bit: "And yes.....what is called religion can also be a part of the big picture."
More than half of scientists polled by Pew Research said they believe in God or a higher power.
This is a case of having a general knowledge of a term without truly understanding it's meaning. A special plead is an exemption "without justification". In the case of the First Cause to avoid special pleading you would be require to justify confining the First Cause to the limits of what was caused since no other examples are available of a cause being limited by what was caused.
Science confirms design again and again. Don't hold your breath for a scientific answer to the existence of time, space, and matter without God.
No one here has addressed DST. First Cause is not theoretical and is not related to possibility and probability theories.
You're defining God as being a First Cause and thus is exempt from the rule of needing a designer. It's basically "Anything that exists needs a Designer, except the Designer Itself, thus a Designer exists.
Why can't you just believe and leave it at that? Believers shouldn't want science as an authority on the supernatural because science can't address the supernatural.
You don't understand First Cause. No cause is limited by what is caused. We understand existence only in terms limited by time, space, and matter. But the First Cause by definition is outside, above, and greater than the first caused: time, space, and matter. The First Cause, by definition, must be uncaused.
And yet you've posted many articles by Sam Harris, C. Hitchens, et al.
Opie, opie. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.
Last edited:
Read your paragraph. You're defining something that doesn't need to be caused. You even say "by definition." That is what I'm saying, namely you're defining what you want to be true as true. Why does God have to be a First Cause that doesn't need to be caused by something else/ Whatever you say is a First Cause by definition doesn't need to be cause but it's only a First Cause because YOU'RE SAYING it's a First Cause. That doesn't mean that it IS a First Cause.
As far as Harris & Hitchens goes, I like some of what they write (especially Harris) but they're not my authority. That said, I think Harris would agree with me. I don't know about Hitchens. Richard Dawkins, who is harder core on this issue, might not agree.
But whatever. Lots of people don't believe in God and there's no reason to think there is a God but won't say they can absolutely prove there's no God and that's where I am. And some people go the extra step and say they're sure there's not a God, like Dawkins (I think that's where he is). Taking that extra step seems unwarranted to me but really the difference isn't all that much.
By the way, did you see that some guy says Hitchens converted to Christianity in his final years, or something like that, I forget the details. It's such a cliche at this point where a famous non-believer dies and then someone says he or she was actually a believer by the time they died. Not classy, to put it mildly. Dawkins is getting up there and he had a stroke recently so who knows how long he's got left but I feel sure when he dies we'll get stories about how he was secretly a believer. Believers simply can't help but make stuff up.
You're having trouble defining the word "first". I did not invent the definition to the word first. First means nothing before it. Notice I did not use the word "God" in the post you are quoting. You say, "Whatever you say is a First Cause by definition doesn't need to be cause but it's only a First Cause because YOU'RE SAYING it's a First Cause. That doesn't mean that it IS a First Cause." Wow. Yes, opie, whatever is first by definition is first.
You are unable to stay on topic. I said you post articles by atheists in response to your statement that I should just believe what I believe without expressing it when you yourself do not practice the same.
False. All the evidence points to a Creator. In fact there is not competing theory for the existence of time, space, and matter (i.e. nature).
I haven't seen that. Probably some atheist started the rumor and blamed it on Christians since atheists have no objective standards of morality.
I don't know what you're getting at re. Harris & Hitchens. I've posted links to video and articles by them before but I don't recall posting anything about this particular topic and them and anyway they are not my authority on anything although I agree with them on lots of things. So what? If they have something I like then maybe I link to it here. What does that have to do with anything?
If all evidence points to a Creator then why do so many people not believe in a Creator? There is no scientific theory of a Creator. Tell me how there can be a scientific theory of the supernatural? Science says "I don't know" a lot and that's enough for some people. "I don't know" doesn't mean "I don't know, so what someone else says must be true," rather it just means "I don't know."
Wrong. I've met some that I trust more than "believers" and have higher standards and morals than "believers". I could cite examples for days about corrupt "believers" and their evils deeds.
You can believe whatever you want to believe, it doesn't bother me. If you really want to convince me of the existence of your God, bring him by and introduce him and I'll start believing.
I said nothing about higher standards. I said atheists have no objection standard. It's a regular debate topic between atheists and theist: moral relativism.
Post your address. I'll bring Him by as soon as I can arrange it.
Last edited:
Atheists have their own moral code, whatever it may be. Believers pick a religion or Holy Book and use that as their moral code and then say atheists have no moral code because they decide what their code is and deciding your own code makes it arbitrary.
But believers don't seem to realize that they are deciding which religion or Holy Book to base their code on and that makes it no less arbitrary than the code atheists use. And in fact, even within the same religion or same set of Holy Books people have varying codes. So the notion that believers based their code on something more substantial than do atheists doesn't really stand up.
I stated my point in plain English. I don't anyone else following is having trouble getting ne'er standing my point.
Well, I asked all of them and they all told me they prayed that something bad wouldn't happen and it happened anyway. So first they all were mad at God then they decided they didn't believe in God. Whenever they are tempted to believe in God they remember how mad God makes them and they quickly dismiss any thoughts of God's existence. They all decided to pursue careers which are dismissive of the notion of God so that any evidence is quickly dismissed and ignored. That's the story...for all of them...every single one...no exceptions.
Where did I say "competing scientific theory"?