Debate Info

Debate Score:61
Total Votes:80
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Proof God Exists (43)

Debate Creator

dadman(1701) pic

Proof God Exists

Respected Scientist Says He Found Proof God Exists

One of the world’s most respected scientists has said that there is scientific proof that points to the existence of God. 
According to the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies, scientist Michio Kaku
who is known as one of the developers of the revolutionary String Theory, stated, “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence.”
In a video Kaku explains, using physics and mathematics and referencing String Theory, 
how science points to the existence of God. 
The very purpose of physics, says Kaku is “to find an equation … 
which will allow us to unify all the forces of nature and allow us to read the mind of God.” 
Add New Argument
2 points

If You Can Read This, I (Perry Marshall) Can Prove God Exists ........... I’m author of the book Industrial Ethernet published by ISA, now in its 2nd edition, and have written many dozens of magazine articles and white papers on computer networks. Now you may ask, what do computers have to do with DNA and all those endless arguments about intelligent design? Actually, a lot ..... Just like all those 1’s and 0’s that make our modern world go ‘round, DNA is also a digital communication system. All the same formulas and communication theory that created our modern digital age apply to DNA too. In fact many methods that are commonplace in the information technology field have been adapted and applied to genetics research and the Human Genome Project .... Now, discover what our knowledge of modern communication systems now tells us about the Origins Debate ..... Listen to “If you can read this, I can prove God exists” by Perry Marshall ......... continue to site

2 points

You must realize that these hypocrites who always throw science at you when they are ridiculing people of faith, will now ridicule you for usng science.

LOL, what a laugh they are and why I ban so many of them. It is a total waste of time. They will deny anything you say no matter if it is from science or from anything else.

You have a lot more patience with these idiots than do I. They will never admit anything no matter what it is if it dissagress with their atheisim. I've learned to just ban them, give the facts and laugh at the idiots on the arguments they copy. They can't create their own arguments. They lack that simple intellect. They must copy mine and then insult.

2 points

Slapshot has put up a very good and respectful dissent against the OP. I would sure ban Fartman for his usual stupidity. Slapshot deserves a lot of credit here.

2 points

First, my friend, I want to complement you on your level headed expression of dissent against the OP and your fine grammar and good display of manners while expressing your strongly contrary opinion. Strength is folly if it cannot be held in reserve at will, and I am very pleased by your manners and speech here. This is the stuff I can read and enjoy and appreciate even when it totally goes against my belief. I beg your pardon for calling atheism dishonest as I know you truly believe Jesus Christ is not God. In the following post, the basis of my referring to atheism as dishonest is only it's assertion that there is no God when it is impossible to know that. Atheism is a choice, a willful choice which is unnecessary in science. Neither is belief in evolution required to understand any field of science.

Einstein was not an atheist. Quoting you, "Einstein too was an atheist. I can give you many links on this, and so his "god" was also a Deist non-personal sort of Universal Governing Law." Einstein was an honest scientist who never said "there is no God" or "I have no god-belief", or whatever basic qualifier you would say summarizes atheism. Atheists try to paint Einstein as an atheist in desperation to equate atheism with high intelligence.....You can be an atheist and a deist. You yourself said Einstein was a deist, but then you say his idea of deity was atheistic. You can't have it both ways. Einstein's concept of God was incomplete and uncertain, but he never said "there is no God". Honest science observes nature, and honest scientists admit that material reality cannot be explained outside of God causing it to exist. There are more than one highly esteemed and accomplished scientists who came to believe God is there because of scientific inquiry of nature in cosmology, biology, physics, and other fields and later on SOME of these people became Christians because there is no hope for you or for anybody if the gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news from God, is not true.

When scientists like yourself claim to have exclusive understanding of science supporting belief in evolution or the big bang, it is not honest science but rather becomes backwards science fitting data around hypothesis which excludes contrary data and ignores other hypothesis which are not excluded by the data.

Atheism is dishonest in asserting something the believer cannot possibly know. It is impossible to know that there is no God. You can believe there is no God, but Einstein was honest and not a fool.

Hindu's believe there is a God, but like Einstein their view of God is distorted so they do not see God as being separate from nature. Hinduism is based more on experiential practices of meditations in which scientifically documentable changes in the brain take place, and the experiences have a base of commonality among it's practitioners. I was pretty deep in an American version of Hinduism which used a lot of Hindu roots, books, and teachings........I was deep into the meditation practices, and I know some other Christians who came out of it and had much the same experience as myself and experiences talked about in Hinduism books and religions like Demon Hunter's Hindu/occult mix of fake Christianity. It is not uncommon for people who dabble in these things to have real encounters with demons, angels, or "aliens", and they all end up believing evil and good are basically equal forces in nature and there is no Hell so Heaven does not really matter and life and death are ultimately meaningless. I'm rambling a bit, but back to the scientific observation of religious practices causing observable changes in the body ....such changes in the brain can also be shown in other religious people such as wiccans and Satanists who get into trance rituals.....and they can also be seen in tongues-talking holy roller Pentecostal type Christians. Science can only observe the physical changes in the body, it cannot substantiate the beliefs of the individuals and it certainly cannot substantiate atheism. I know you hate to hear this, but the only way atheism can be substantiated is in dying, and the only way it can be fulfilled is in Hell where nothing good indicates God loves you. You're can't win fighting against God. He died for you as the Man Jesus Christ and is risen from the dead with power to forgive your sins and give you eternal life.

Don't be so dismissive of Dadman's intelligence. He's different, but he's not dumb. Education leads to a puffed up head. Honesty, like in Einstein, leads to humility as Einstein recognized something beyond his comprehensive ability causing the material world to exist as it is. Einstein was a's very hard for Jews to accept that Jesus is their Messiah. Einstein to the easier "deist" route which was not so controversial. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me". That's quite exclusive and controversial, and believing that statement has caused real Christians to be persecuted, tortured, killed ever since A.D. 33 after they spent time with the resurrected Savior. They hate Christians today the same as they hated Jesus when they crucified him. You have to be a real man to be a real Christian. Dawkins is people can't see that when watching his ranting videos or reading his books is amazing to me. His face looks so evil when he starts attacking God, Christians, and the Bible.......or when he's going off on his philosophical tangents. I'd rather be like Jesus, and I know I will be like Him in His glory, for the honor of His name, soon...very soon. Hope to see you there, friend, though I understand you want your own way more than life so I don't expect to see you there.

There is only one God who atheists or theists want to get rid of, and He is Jesus Christ who calls sinners to repentance and promises vengeance of Hell fire against sinners who will not repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 points

DNA is obviously by intelligent design, and the more it's studied the harder it is to deny the intelligent design behind it.

1 point

Wow...your Straw Man claim of your debate title has so many flaws in it I scarcely know where to begin. Give me a minute please, while I finish laughing.


Now then..........I am all to familiar with Dr. Kaku. And to be honest, I like him quite a bit. He has done a lot to popularize Cosmology and quantum mechanics, and bring them to the masses and to the laymen, like the late Carl Sagan originally did. I also have heard Dr. Kaku speak in person. The most recently was at my University in Ann Arbor, Michigan a couple years ago.

That said, here is why your claim of proof of God is total tripe.

FIRST...The fact that ONE fairly well-known and fairly credible (on some matters) cosmologist/physicist says that he believes there is an underlying Intelligence that governs the Universe hardly equates to proof of a god.

Especially the type of God you believe in. And do all the other fundamentalist Christians. No sir, rest assured that Dr. Kaku's Intelligence (he does not even use the word GOD!) is far different.

Did you even watch the video? Are you even remotely familiar with this man's work? I am. I have read two books by him, and like I said attended in person two of his lectures. I have also reas probably half a dozen of his peer-reviews papers.

And the thing is if you ARE familiar with his work and his beliefs, you know that HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN A PERSONAL AND LOVING BIBLICAL TYPE OF A GOD!!

I cannot underscore this point enough. Even if he were to use the word "God" which he self-admittedly hesitates to, his version of that entity is NOT a Theist God. Rather, it is an uncaring and impersonal Universal Intelligence. Or a Universal Infinite Mind. Hardly any more personal or loving that, say, an electromagnetic field or a region of Dark Energy.

His "god" would be far more in-line with the "god" of the Akashic Record, if you know what that is. If you don't you should look it up. Really. It is interesting. Though I believe it to be bogus as well.

Dr. Kaku's Intelligence is the same "god" than Einstein spoke of when he railed at the weirdness and unpredictability of quantum mechanics, claiming that "god does not play dice with the Universe."

Einstein too was an atheist. I can give you many links on this, and so his "god" was also a Deist non-personal sort of Universal Governing Law. Which like Kaku's Intelligence bears about as much resemblance to Yahweh as does a neutron star or a Black Hole.

Dr Kaku in the lecture I attended also straight up admitted that he DOES NOT BELIEVE IN A BIBLICAL SORT OF GOD.

He went on to say, "And I also feel that the bible is not the book to look to for any sort of accurate science, including perhaps most of all, Cosmology."

(Direct verbatim quote: University of Michigan, 2011)........

So I must prove your claim wrong on two counts: that even if Kakyu believed in a Biblical God--which he assuredly DOES NOT, belief by ONE MAN would not constitute anything close to proof.

TWO....Kaku's "Intelligence" is NOT anything like your personal and biblical Theist God.

This was a very very dishonest debate title, You really hsould be ashamed to be so misleading. You have done irreparable harm to any credibility you had here, which wasn't much. And your whole debate smacks of futility on your part.

I am sorry (well, not really) to come down on you so hard. I just thoroughly destroyed you in this post. But I felt compelled to as your reference was a man of science like me, and I felt you trespassed into our sacred arena with your silly superstitious nonsense.

That sir, I cannot and will not abide.

Hope this helps!


dadman(1701) Disputed
1 point

Once these new scientific discoveries become widely known ..... no no no not if the atheists have anything to do with it .... to them it's not about new descoveries .... it's about supressing new discoveries

Cartman(18191) Disputed
1 point

The only group that has ever suppressed science is your group.

dadman(1701) Disputed
1 point

Atheists presuppose human dignity and worth, and thus, for instance, they will attend the funeral of a friend, or a relative as if their lives had meaning. But then the atheist will turn around and argue that man has no dignity, and has no more worth or value than a rat or a dog, or any other product of the evolutionary process. After all man is just a clump of protoplasm, and mere stardust on such a worldview – nothing but a blind product of the evolutionary process (time + matter + chance) and chemical factors controlled by the laws of physics .... But the same atheist will kiss his wife, and children goodnight as if something called love actually exists. The same atheist will feel violated if someone does him wrong as if his emotions actually have value to them .... Furthermore, the atheist will also argue that in sexual relations we must not impose our views on others (for instance that homosexuality is sinful), and sometimes he will even defend prostitution. However, he will condemn child molestation and necrophilia as morally abhorrent sexual activities. Why is child molestation morally wrong, and a heterosexual relationship morally right, on atheism? The atheist cannot bring his worldview into harmony, or live consistently with it ...... JAMES BISHOP'S THEOLOGY & APOLOGETICS

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

My theory is that sexual perversion is the driving force of atheism, atheists do not want to believe objective morality regarding sexual expression. They are fully aware that belief in God who would know them better than their parents know them and better than they know themselves would cause them to be ashamed of sexual indulgence apart from their marriage partner....apart from the merging of a man and woman as one flesh until parted by death.

It doesn't take much of listening to or reading Dawkins to see how filthy and perverted his speech and imaginations, if not his actual practices, show what he believes regarding personal preference of sexual expression rather than objective morality. The guy is a certified potty mouth promoting all kinds of perversion and profane behavior. I have yet to encounter one atheists who fails to make it clear than they do not want anybody telling them what is right or wrong in how they indulge themselves sexually. They are desperate to get rid of God because they know they are in trouble for their perversions if they have to face God........they love their sin more than life, men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
0 points

You actually agreed with Dadman in pointing out that Einstein and Kaku's concept of God is deist and not Christian. The point is that they found God is the only explanation for nature. The fact that they did not accept God of the Bible only means they don't want to be personally morally accountable to God. They still felt no choice but to concede to some form of intelligent, though they believed impersonal, design.

You did nothing to destroy the post. I don't see where the OP or Kaku is presented as supporting the Bible. I think the point is that randomness cannot explain reality, God must be there. God being impersonal seems to be Kaku's opinion which he is entitled to. I would say they are wrong about who God is, but right about Him being the designer of the material universe and all of nature.

1 point

That is not proof that God exists. That is a personal reason for him to believe that God exists.

What it proves is that the more you learn about this world, the more you realize how little you actually know.

dadman(1701) Clarified
1 point

the more you learn about this world, the more you realize how little you actually know .... indeed,

this is why it is impossible to be an actual "atheist" ... "there IS NO God"


A true atheist, in my view, is how the ‘Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy’ defines him: “The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.” ..... ‘The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’ also defines it thusly: “Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” ..... Both define the atheist in the affirmative by denying the existence of God, yet many atheists believe that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. This in itself basically equates atheism (as defined above) with agnosticism. This is not unusual as atheists often like to redefine their worldview to mean the absence or lack of belief in God, and therefore minimize any intellectual responsibility they need have to substantiate their worldview. However, such means that atheism is no longer a worldview, but rather a mental state – on such a view babies and cats are also atheists. As the well-known quip goes: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” ..... I believe that a worldview is irrational if it needs to be redefined because it cannot bear the burden of proof it needs to carry – especially of those who claim to be an agnostic atheist… Such is what I see with atheism, I believe the atheist would be quick to point me out for redefining my theistic worldview in order to lighten the burden of proof ...... JAMES BISHOP'S THEOLOGY & APOLOGETICS

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
2 points

Kaku and Einstein are both used by atheists to support the idea that God does not care for them personally. Chasing around with their ideas becomes a rabbit trail, a waste of time. They just keep going off into more and more hypothetical concepts like multiple universes and stupid snowflake arguments.

The problem is not scientific, the problem is moral. People who do not want the truth will reject any real science which indicates God is there......such as the information coding, storage, and transfrer in DNA which obvioiusly cannot come but by intelligent design. They will ignor the obvious and invent more and more hypothetical nonsense like the primordial soup getting zapped so that KNA happened and living things emerged out of nonlining things. Arrguing thes things with people who hold their bleliefs more important than reality seems like a waste of time. It's like fishing in a lake with no fish.

Cartman(18191) Disputed
1 point

I believe that a worldview is irrational if it needs to be redefined because it cannot bear the burden of proof it needs to carry

Oh wow. You guys really are that fucking dumb. The theist worldview changes even more than the atheist worldview.

Ayemaker(237) Disputed
1 point

Dude, Stop smoking so much weed. Your arguments are loose enough to get fistfucked.

1 point

Searching for the truth is simply part of being human, we all try to separate what we think is true from what we think is false. We search for this truth to make sense of our existence, for most God provides the most rational explanation, but for an atheist it is his atheism that he holds to which inevitably results in a set of beliefs on the meaning of existence. He wouldn’t be an atheist if he didn’t believe that his atheism was true ..... Yet, on atheism why should we be obligated to search for truth? As on atheism he will usually appeal to the flourishing of humans to be the ultimate good, but although such flourishing is a good thing it still inevitably leads to further issues. For instance, if seeking the truth on any given subject would diminish human flourishing then seeking that truth would be evil, and thus we would be morally obligated to avoid or suppress knowledge of that truth ..... An example would be an elderly woman who is about to die but faces death joyfully because she believes she is going to be with God and her other loved ones. But on atheism, given it were true, would it be good for this elderly lady to know the truth of atheism? No, as atheism would give her no comfort whatsoever in the face of death – her existence is simply going to end, she will rot away in a grave, and she won’t be with God or her loved ones – thus, any sense of human flourishing would dissipate, provided atheism were true ..... On the same note, if the elderly woman were to ask an atheist standing by her bedside if his atheism was true, the atheist would be morally obligated either to lie to her or tell her a half truth, or risk making the elderly woman miserable ..... The fact is that on atheism seeking the truth is not intrinsically good, nor can the atheist claim it as such ...... JAMES BISHOP'S THEOLOGY & APOLOGETICS

this proves absolutely nothing! its still a personal opinion, attempting to back it up with mathematical equations and theory's nothing solid or conclusive.

dadman(1701) Disputed
2 points

.................. a man convinced against his will is indeed unconvinced still


Even if we assume that naturalistic causes alone could have created the universe, it would still follow that non-living material had to become living at some stage. This is also an unproven (and impossible) position that must be accepted when denying the existence of God, and embracing atheism. How did non-living matter in motion, which is all we are on atheism, create conscious biological life? Inorganic matter cannot by a mechanical reconfiguration give rise to organic life. Such needs to be accepted on atheism .... I must make it clear that I do not use the origin of life as an argument for God as such would fall foul to the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, and reasoning. What I do argue is that this impossible, thus irrational, position must be accepted on atheism – that non-life can give rise to organic life; the atheist has no other alternative within his worldview. Either way, as the atheist denies supernatural causation he must therefore attribute such an event to an unknown natural cause, hence he falls for the naturalism-of-the-gaps fallacy. That is blind faith ...... JAMES BISHOP'S THEOLOGY & APOLOGETICS ..... indeed blind RELIGIOUS faith

minimurph83(194) Disputed
0 points

An unknown natural cause, is only unknown at present but will become know at some stage or point in time and again devalue any justification of god, just because something is unexplainable this doesn't give substance to religion, it only highlights how religion was concocted and used in times where there were many unknowns.

1 point

Kaku = "To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance"

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
2 points

Kaku is really not much good for Christian apologetics as he sums up the mind of God as string theory in 11 or whatever dimensions. Multiple dimensions is a tangent of nonsense. He is like Einstein in his deism, but it takes a lot more than that for a person to come to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Kaku is presenting a way that physicists and mathematicians can have common ground in developing new unprovable ideas and go on and on and on trying to prove what they believe while insisting they are on the right track but never quite able to completely prove it.........the Bible calls it vain philosophies, science so called, and ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified Banned
0 points

And you'll latch onto that quote and attach to it all of your beliefs, then pretend he clearly must be talking about a Judeo-Christian god.

dadman(1701) Disputed
1 point

then pretend he clearly must be talking about a Judeo-Christian God ...

where did I claim that ?? ... you all are making that claim ... not me

1 point

Natural Selection is perfectly valid and has been proven time and time again. But most people will be very surprised to discover that no one has ever actually demonstrated that random mutation can create new information. Information theory shows us why this is so: In communication systems, Random Mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal, never enhances it.

Snowy TV In communication systems this is called information entropy, and the formula for information entropy is exactly the same as thermodynamic entropy. Once lost, the information can never be recovered, much less enhanced. Thus we can be 100% certain that random mutation is not the source of biodiversity. A tool is provided,, that allows you to experiment and see for yourself that random mutation always destroys information, never enhances it.

Fruit Fly This observation is also confirmed biologically by Theodosius Dobzhansky’s fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt’s gypsy moth experiments, and others. Decades of research were conducted in the early 20 th century, bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures. These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies. Giraffes may have evolved from antelopes – I never said that couldn’t happen, and I remain open to the possibility that it did. But it certainly wasn’t because of Random Mutation!

1 point

Proof that DNA was designed by a mind: (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

We can explore five possible conclusions:

1) Humans designed DNA

2) Aliens designed DNA

3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously

4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information

5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

(1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. (3) may be a remote possibility, but it’s not a scientific explanation in that it doesn’t refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It’s nothing more than an appeal to luck . (4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is (5) a theological one.

To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer.

1 point

Not a bad debate, Saint. And you make a few pretty compelling points for Intelligence being behind DNA. Other scientists--though, in reality, not too many--have said things along the same line. But as you know most Biologists and geneticists ARE atheist, like me.

I would humbly counter your argument with this, and it is more or less what other materialist Biologists think about DNA.

It DOES "appear" to be "smart." But at its base, it is only a molecule. Comprised of a double-helix shape, as you know, with the frames of the "ladder" being only sugars and phosphates. And the rungs are four amino acids: Adenine; Cytosine' Guanine; and Thymine.

And they always pair up as T with A; and G with C. So....A-T and C-G.

Further, what DNA really works like is switches. They determine if a certain genome, which in turn combine to make the characteristics of living organisms. Such as hair color; eyes; physiological build; organs; epidermis; fur; brains, whatever. But when you consider that only these four peptides can make strands thousands of miles long with an infinite combination, you get an appearance of Design.

But this is in the same way it seems like our computers are smart! Or a program is smart. When in reality it has nothing to do with Intelligence, but is only electrons being manipulated in certain ways. That's ALL computers do: manipulate electrons, through the logic gates and chipset of the Central Processing Unit, or CPU.

And a computer uses a binary language, as does, in a way, DNA does. A computer with it's ones and zeroes is REALLY just "on" or "off."

Same deal with a DNA molecule. It is either switching off or on that certain genome, that code that determines typologies or characteristics. This is why you and I share a full 90% of our DNA patterns, the genome, with a mouse! And a full 70% with a banana.

It is in the combination of those DNA molecular strands that gives the deceiving appearance of a Design, or of an Intelligence being at the root of it all. DNA codes for amino acids which in turn are the building blocks of proteins, which are the foundation of living organisms.

So we need not introduce Alien Design into the subject, or a god.

Information is created in a software program with things not living at all! With only ones and zeros, or "off" and "on" switches that control those billions of electrons.

Tear down a computer and you find a CPU silicon chip as the Brain. And the so-called life blood of a computer program would be the simple machine code that is "read" by the software program which in turns manipulate electrons.

Tear down a human being, you get to organs, then cells, and then the mitochondria (power stations!) of those cells, and in those you get the molecules that are Deoxy-Ribo-Nucleic Acid, or DNA.

And there you find, at the very bottom, NO intelligence.

Just tiny switches composed of sugars and phosphates and amino acids.

Always remember that appearances are often deceiving. This is why in science break things down to their smallest and simplest possible level.

Thanks for the debate!


Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

What you are leaving out of your DNA presentation is life. A computer's brain is useless and non-functioning without life, and it's complexity compares to DNA like a bicycle compares to the International Space Station....and that is an overstatement.

You can't get DNA out of randomness. It could only come by intelligent design. You don't have to believe it came from intelligent design to study it, and you don't have to believe it came from randomness to study it. It is what it is, and it could not be in living things if it were less than what it is.

The basic argument of the OP is that nature shows the handiwork of God, and honest scientists see it though most of them prefer God be anything but God of the Bible. Most of them do not want to be in submission to God, so they remain in your group of what you say is 90 percent of scientists who reject Jesus Christ.

You are tying to equate your beliefs with science, blurring the line between what is objective and tangible and what can only be believed. The faith of God in Jesus Christ is objective and tangible, but brutally honest and realistic so that most people prefer to go their own way hoping God will not rule against them.

Tear down a human being and you get a pile of dust if the life is not there. A body is not a human being.

Tear down a computer, and you get a pile of dust if there is no power to make the thing operate. A computer is only a pile of metal and rare earth elements, dust, without electricity giving it a form of life. What you are doing is trying to deny life and change yourself into nothing with no moral accountability outside your own preferences. While it may appear to be gratifying momentarily, momentary feelings of satisfaction are deceptive.

The smallest and simplest living thing is a single celled organism with life embedded in it's DNA. It can't happen without intelligent design any more than a computer can assemble itself with a battery that gets continually zapped by lightning so that it's robot arms make copies of itself and put Bill Gates out of business.

Sure if you tear down a human body in death there is no intelligence in that body, the life is gone. As long as my body lives, there is an intelligently designed functioning program able to reproduce itself. Of course there is no intelligence present if life is not present. That's why you are so smart my friend, you are full of life........too bad dying is winning over you. Jesus conquered death and he can fix that for you.

0 points

Kaku has proposed a theory to that end, using what he calls “primitive semi-radius tachyons.” ..... “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,” he stated ..... Once these new scientific discoveries become widely known, the concept of chance will be changed forever.

“Believe me,” says Kaku, “everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”
J-Roc77(70) Disputed
1 point

Long story short Kaku offers an opinion during a discussion about physics and mathmatics. He does not advance any testable idea let alone a "theory" in any scientific use of the word on there being a god or not. He does assert that the 'rules' where we exist are created...but that's just turtles all the way down from there. To think that Kaku offers proof of god here is to misrepresent what he says and/or to misunderstand how science works.

During discussions Kaku often leaves his field study of theoretical physics and interjects his personal philosophy. He also likes to use flowery language which the video is full of. He's a bit like Deepak Chopra sometimes except with a little more credability in his field.

1 point

Exactly. I also explained to sadman that Dr. Kaku's Intelligence is nothing like the personal and Biblical God that he believes in. Kaku is loathe to even use the word "god." And his idea of a Universal Intelligence is about as personal and loving and caring as a Cosmic Computer Program. I also attended in person a lecture by Dr. Kaku where he flat-out admitted that he doe not believe in a personal biblical God. (see my OP above for more.)

I will attempt to find the official transcripts from his lecture I attended at the U of M a few years ago.


He also acknowledges evolution and the big bang. Why does any question we have about the universe end for you with "JUDAEO CHRISTIAN GOD!!!"? Also he is referring to God in the more philosophical sense of the word.

dadman(1701) Disputed
2 points

lol ..... w h a t e v e r .... science BLOWS YOUR > theory < out of the water .... undirected / random chance pfft !! :)

IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified Banned
0 points

If you are so certain in your beliefs, why so you consistently resort to lying and misrepresenting the facts as you did here?

0 points

He isn't the first, nor will he be the last. Hopefully he will continue to make discoveries, but history shows that finding God ends the search. Sad.

dadman(1701) Disputed
1 point

but history shows that finding God ends the search ... pfft !! .. omG ! ...

no, it just answers major questions and gives man the reason to rise above the animal world and a hope for an eternal future ...

oh, is that a pink-slip you're holding there Cartman ?? ... I'm so sorry ... better 'luck' next time

btw: we just like to go where the evidence leads ..... all life derives from a form of intelligence

everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore .... pfft !! it never did

Cartman(18191) Disputed
0 points

no, it just answers major questions and gives man the reason to rise above the animal world and a hope for an eternal future ...

Actually, scientists who come by afterward who don't give up end up finding the actual answers that aren't God related. This has happened over and over again in human history.

oh, is that a pink-slip you're holding there Cartman ?? ... I'm so sorry ... better 'luck' next time

I know you don't know this, but someone holding a pink-slip means they were at least able to hold a job at some point. So, not exactly an insult.

btw: we just like to go where the evidence leads

You have ignored every piece of evidence ever given to you.