I'm sure you meant that Michio Kaku offers his opinion, right?

Yeah I like his answer/response/opinion whatever...let's not split hairs. I respect and agree with his view. I think he, and other scientists, he mentioned Einstein, are careful not to offend those who believe in a personal deity, but in the end they don't believe in a personal God.

Ted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah I like his answer/response/opinion
> whatever...let's not split hairs. I respect and
> agree with his view. I think he, and other
> scientists, he mentioned Einstein, are careful not
> to offend those who believe in a personal deity,
> but in the end they don't believe in a personal
> God.
Thanks Ted, I agree with you and with Kaku and Einstein.
We are in good company,

"Science seeks for many of the same philosophies as ancient societies, the search for harmony, the search for unification. And that's why Einstein said he believed in the god of Spinoza, the god of harmony. That the universe didn't have to be as harmonious. But he did not believe in a personal God. The God of prayer. He thought that there was a lawgiver, that is, the laws of harmony."

Hawking said something similar about Einstein's god in his last book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions, Is There a God?" although Hawking believes the opposite of Einstein, that god doesn't only play dice with the Universe, god owns the casino and plays craps table every time she's got a chance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2019 10:45PM by koriwhore.

..because Kaku speaks as the final word for all scientists and all science forevermore don't cha know.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ..because Kaku speaks as the final word for all
> scientists and all science forevermore don't cha
> know.
He did co-author M Theory, which Hawking said in his last book, was the best candidate for a unified theory of everything. He is not shy about answering questions about god or other important questions.

Which god would you like Kaku to deal with ? All gods are equally real.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which god would you like Kaku to deal with ? All
> gods are equally real.

Einsteins's God, only one who plays dice with the universe, which
plays cosmic music on strings that resonate through the 11 dimensions of hyperspace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU0I65HsM7U

in the realm of philosophy and logic.

"Science" properly understood is the realm of experimentation and observed results, applied in a context of testing rigorously and carefully defined hypotheses. It does not allow for open-ended extrapolations and somewhat educated guesswork.

What Michio is talking about here is a search for better "explanations" of observed reality. The theories that he cites may be sufficient starting points for the first stages of true scientific inquiry. But they are not a firm foundation for scientific conclusions. "Multiple big bangs" and multiple reality "bubbles" in a "multi-verse" explained by "string theory"....

What causes a big bang? What observations prove the existence of multiple universes? Why is "harmony" important?

These are things that are still being guessed at.

The old-time religions have been overtaken by events. In other words, when people knew next to nothing, the vague pronouncements of old-time religions were the only game in town (especially in times when mandatory acceptance could be enforced by administrations of physical punishment up to and including death). Science per se has not proven false the various "god" concepts of the old-time religions. No well-defined experiments have been done to test for the existence/non-existence of each brand of god. But philosophy and logic have to a large extent disproved a majority of formerly popular definitions and conceptions of "god".

Believers have had to continually redefine the attributes of their gods in a continuing effort to stay one step ahead of critics who have carefully examined each clearly defined set of "god" attributes that could be examined and have found such attributes to be inconsistent with observable reality. OTOH, many "god" concepts are so ambiguously stated that they can't be tested or examined on the basis of rigorously applied logic and facts. They therefore escape definitive refutation. But their ambiguity also renders such "god" concepts largely meaningless other than as a vague hope that there is some powerful being out there that will ultimately do some nice things for us and "make everything better".

In some ways the capricious gods of Roman and Greek mythology fare better against philosophy and logic because...well... because they're capricious and they were never advertised as being all-knowing and all-powerful--just waaaay more knowing and powerful than ordinary mortals. The fact that they're invisible also helps them evade rigorous investigation.

But when you're talking about an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god who is the "same today and tomorrow and forever" who somehow can't accomplish what he promises to accomplish in his holy book and can't manage to arrange for the publication of an unquestionably error-free holy book that everyone can rely on without thousands of conflicting interpretations leading to insoluble confusion? Well, if that's the god you're talking about, you're already off to a bad start and nobody needs Michio Kaku to confirm that. But if he wants to throw in his two cents, why not?