How is that not exactly as I described it, as evaluating a supernatural hypothesis? Surely the "proof" would be have to be observed data, or you'd be done. The "existence of God" part is the supernatural hypothesis that the scientist is offering to explain the data. Unless it were very different than every previous such invocation of a deity, it must be rejected out of hand as not science.

The words "serious", "scientist", and "proven" have specific, non-supernatural definitions when used together in the same sentence, and this is the spirit in which I had written them.

God is a concept which is supernatural to the extent that it (He, so as not to be offensive) cannot be proven but must be accepted on faith.

If a serious scientist claimed scientific proof for the existence of God, I would want to see his work and evaluate it, if for no other reason than to show where he is mistaken. I would be skeptical, but I would not dismiss it out of hand.

Note that I would not accept the absence of a natural explanation as proof of the supernatural.

I will ask the question again: if a serious scientist has no business investigating the existence of God, is it also true that he has no business attempting to prove God's non-existence (i.e Stephen Hawking)?

 

Doesn't AAC have a rule against discussion of religion? And doesn't that rule include discussions that denigrate religion and religious belief? If not, then I want to tell you why I believe in God.

 

Doesn't AAC have a rule against discussion of religion? And doesn't that rule include discussions that denigrate religion and religious belief? If not, then I want to tell you why I believe in God.

I was trying to be respectful, @tracecom. I apologize if I came across otherwise.

 

There have been plenty of serious scientists in the past that believe in God. Newton, Einstein and Pasteur, to name a few.
Although I believe that science and theology are complementary things, and do not necessarily contradict each other, I think this discussion is moot. Just as (presently) God's existence cannot be scientifically proven, his non-existence cannot be proved either.
As Carl Sagan once said himself in his book "Broca's Brain": An atheist presumes to know too much.

I mean no offense to the atheists in this forum. But it seems to me that one needs the same measure of non-faith to be an atheist as a believer needs a measure of faith to be one.

 

I was trying to be respectful, @tracecom. I apologize if I came across otherwise.

Actually, I think you were being respectful and open minded. It's the opinion that Kaku must have been misquoted to have been attributed with a belief in God that irks me.

 

I was trying to be respectful, @tracecom. I apologize if I came across otherwise.

You surprise me sometimes, Joey... in almost any other subject you can be sarcastic and downright irreverent (nothing wrong with that, if it's humorously applied and in good taste) but in this one you've shown a very unusual level of civility.

 

I suspect that many on this forum have NOT seen an electron. Those that believe in the electron theory of current flow or those that don't, have they physically seen the charge carrier? I've not, yet, I take that on faith as I suspect alot of people do.

 

"God" means different things to all of us. He is in awe of some aspect, and has a hard time believing it wasn't designed.

My best guess.

 

You surprise me sometimes, Joey... in almost any other subject you can be sarcastic and downright irreverent (nothing wrong with that, if it's humorously applied and in good taste) but in this one you've shown a very unusual level of civility.

Usually, being an ass is fun. There are times, though, when it serves no purpose.

 

If universe was created by some higher intelligence that could only mean that we are never going to discover how universe was made simply because if we were to do so "higher intelligence" would destroy us because we would be able to create our own universe and modify the current one which could threaten the sole existence of universe. Nobody likes to have it's stuff fiddled with.

 

If universe was created by some higher intelligence that could only mean that we are never going to discover how universe was made simply because if we were to do so "higher intelligence" would destroy us because we would be able to create our own universe and modify the current one which could threaten the sole existence of universe. Nobody likes to have it's stuff fiddled with.

Actually, I too believe that we'll never entirely know all of the universe's secrets. Although for entirely different (and far less gloomy) reasons than yours.

Ever heard of Kurt Göedel's incompleteness theorem?

 

I think the point was missed somewhere along the way.

Here is my understanding... Good science does not dismiss the idea of a higher intelligence having created the universe. It is one possible explanation and with little evidence to go on, it might be thought as good a theory as the many others we currently have, and the many new theories that will no doubt be proposed in future.

I have no problem with the idea that intelligent design might (or might not) have been involved in the creation of our universe, just the alleged assertion that Kaku has some sort of mathematical proof that our universe WAS brought about by intelligent design.

 

The words "serious", "scientist", and "proven" have specific, non-supernatural definitions when used together in the same sentence, and this is the spirit in which I had written them.

OK, I see your point.

And BTW, I had no intention of sounding anti-religion and hope it didn't sound that way. There is a distinction between science and faith, and the types of questions each can answer. The limits of their philosophies. When people try to mix them, such as Kaku's alleged claim to have proof of a deity, it's usually a bad thing.

 

Kaku's alleged claim to have proof of a deity, it's usually a bad thing.

The article didn't sound that way to me. What I understood was that he was convinced that there is a God.

Unfortunately, the article is redacted in such a way that it says:

says theoretical particles known as “primitive semi-radius tachyons” are physical evidence that the universe was created by a higher intelligence.

How can something theoretical be physical evidence???

 

Even the big bang theory has it's doubters ...

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/big-bang-may-not-have-spawned-universe-after-all

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ry-wrong-claims-scientist-maths-prove-it.html

The problems with the big bang theory are outlined at http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm

So we are back to every theory has it's opposition. But remember,

Here is ...
Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?

 

In the name of The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, you are commanded to surrender for immediate lunch or dinner.
I promise not to talk about politics

 

I suspect that many on this forum have NOT seen an electron. Those that believe in the electron theory of current flow or those that don't, have they physically seen the charge carrier? I've not, yet, I take that on faith as I suspect alot of people do.

Oh, I believe in electrons! Having been knocked on my ass more than once by them tends to encourage belief, and respect.

 

Oh, I believe in electrons! Having been knocked on my ass more than once by them tends to encourage belief, and respect.

And yet... just because of that you are not going to become the founding mother of the Church of the Holy See of Electrons, are you?

 

Unbeliever! Mock not that which can fry you for unending hours in thy own juices before thy misery is done.

 

I am a frisbeetarian. I believe that when I die my soul gets lost on the roof and I can't get down.