https://bigthink.com/videos/god

"Does God exist? The answer rests outside the "normal" boundaries of science.

Well, when you talk about religion, I like to quote from Galileo. Galileo said, the purpose of science is to determine how the heavens go. The purpose of religion is to determine how to go to heaven. So in other words, science is about natural law. It's about the laws of nature. While religion is about ethics, about how to go to heaven, how to be a good person, how to earn the favor of God. So you see, as long as you keep these two separate, there's no problem at all. The problem occurs when people from the natural sciences begin to pontificate upon ethics and when religious people begin to pontificate about natural law. That's where we get into trouble. Now, the boundary of the two, the question arises. Can you prove the existence of God? Well, first of all, let's be clear about this.

There are two kinds of God. Einstein was very clear about this, two kinds of God. The first God is a personal god, the God that you pray to, the God that gives you your bicycle for Christmas, the God that smites the Philistines and destroys your enemies. That's the personal God. Einstein did not believe that the God of the universe created us just so you can get that wagon for a Christmas present. You see, Einstein believed in another god, the god of Spinoza, the god of liveness, the god of order, harmony. The universe could have been random. It could have been chaotic. It could have been messy. But the universe is actually quite elegant, quite simple, and in fact, is gorgeous. You can put the laws of physics as we know them on a simple sheet of paper amazing. It didn't have to be that way.

Therefore, you ask the question, is the existence of God provable? Well, what is science? Science is based on things that are testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. But you see, the existence of God is not testable. It's not reproducible. We cannot reproduce God at will. You cannot put an angel inside a box and demand that miracles take place. It doesn't work that way. That's why religion is based on faith rather than things that are objectively testable, falsifiable, and reproducible. Now, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. I don't know. I don't know if God exists or not. All I'm saying is that science is limited by looking at what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. There are areas where you push the boundaries of that, like the Big Bang.

You cannot reproduce the Big Bang. You cannot test the Big Bang. It's like a detective story. You can only look at the clues, the clues left over from the Big Bang. So to calculate the instant of creation is, in some sense, outside science, because it's not reproducible. You cannot reproduce the Big Bang. But you can then trace the history of what happened afterwards, like a murder mystery. And that's where a lot of science is done. And that's why I say that the existence of God is not within the normal boundaries of science."

Dr. Michio Kaku,

co-founder of string field theory, and one of the most widely recognized scientists in the world today. He has written 4 New York Times Best Sellers, is the science correspondent for CBS This Morning and has hosted numerous science specials for BBC-TV, the Discovery/Science Channel. His radio show broadcasts to 100 radio stations every week. Dr. Kaku holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York (CUNY), where he has taught for over 25 years. He has also been a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study as well as New York University (NYU).

Jesus H. F. Christ, Jr. on a crutch.

I didn’t read much of your drivel, The Cat, but I would indeed be remiss if I did not stand to offer up my testimony: Holy Hair Shirt on a shillelagh!

BUT . . . And it’s a big but(t): you created paragraphs!!!

Bless yer little pea-picking, hamster-wheel spinning, eternally repetitive heart.

I say this in my own name, amen.

> I say this in my own name, amen.

Haha. . . hahahahaha. . . hah!

As I suspected upon seeing so many polysyllabic words, those aren't SC's thoughts, sentences, or paragraphs. It's just a transcript of Kaku's 3.38 minute mini-speech.

And bless YOUR pure, humble, and self-effacing heart for taking one for the team!

He's cuckoo for Kaku puffs.

Wouldn’t non-testability make theoretical physics a kind of religion? Consider the cyclical repeating Big Bang of Roger Penrose. Haven’t we seen this somewhere before? “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

“Science is based on things that are testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. But you see, the existence of God is not testable. It's not reproducible.”

That’s not what Mormons believe. They use the Holy Ghost as a measurement device. They believe in a kind of spirit science where you experiment on the word and follow the promptings. Where I think they get it wrong is that these promptings are the “word of God” referred to in the “not by bread alone” verse. Their cult leaders tell them it means “do what we say”.

It's basically the argument that the orderliness of the universe proves the existence of God.

So if I manage to bring order to my messy house, does that mean there is a god? It might very well. That's the size of the task I am facing this summer, lol.

Yes, that's what hooked me. How could all this order arise "by accident". And also thinking that humans are so special. Especially oneself. How could I just revert to dust? Nooooooooo.

Well, a Goddess.

For anyone who is deeply and seriously interested in this subject, I recommend Googling "Natan Slifkin," and then Googling his book: "Rationalism Vs. Mysticism: Schisms in Traditional Jewish Thought".

I received my copy of this book a couple of months ago, and for me, it is one of the most valuable books I have ever read.

For intellectually-oriented people deeply interested in this subject, this specific book is literally incredible (I could not have imagined the scope and depth of this book prior to my beginning to read it--which I am doing in sections.)

A few things to be aware of:

He is Jewish.

He is usually identified as "Rabbi Doctor Natan Slifkin." This is absolutely normal Jewish practice: "Rabbi" takes precedence over [academic or otherwise] titles like "Doctor" when both titles apply.

Slifkin himself is primarily rationalist [think "scientific"], but--as this book makes clear--this is not a black/white, this/that intellectual situation.

If someone here is interested enough to get this book, I will answer questions about the to-a-non-Jew opaque Jewish/Hebrew references (if I can--I am at a point where I am, at least eventually, understanding most of them).

Slifkin was born and raised in the U.K. and now lives with his family in Israel, where he has created a one-of-a-kind zoo which
studies what amounts to the intersection between Jewish philosophy, history, and life (on the one hand), and deeply, academic/"think tank" almost, studies of these subjects (on the other hand).

Although this book was intended for a 100% Jewish reading audience, I (personally) think it reveals the innards of a much deeper, far more encompassing, and far more universal study of the rationalist/"mystical" split in human religions and belief systems worldwide. I think this book is so intellectually valuable that it should be on the required readings lists of anyone (Jewish or not) interested in these subjects.

Just be aware: deep intellectual curiosity is required--otherwise do NOT get this book. Your brain will be traveling into intellectual places you've probably never thought about before (the 1968 film "2001: A Space Odyssey" comes to mind), but you will likely come out "the other end" far wiser (in ways both expected and unexpected) than you've likely ever been before.

An amazing book, which has improved my own intellectual capabilities in ways that before I didn't even realize were possible.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2021 05:48PM by Tevai.

The one you don't believe in and the one other people think you believe in. It is a circle in a circle. And if you are a successful atheist with other people you can reduce the second circle to nothing.

But there will always be these two types of god.

Twine, being more robust than String, provides a much-improved 12-step Universe. (Yes, I added a dimension. Universes should NOT come with a prime number of levels! Being divisible by ONLY! two whole numbers is weird)

As with most things unprovable, it only matters that you SAY you think my Twine Field Theory is interesting, even fascinating . . .
If you want to publicly state that Twine Theory is Elegant, I will then follow you on Twiddle...or Twaddle, your choice. At least once a week I will write, "luv ya, bro!" to you. Please feel obligated to respond appropriately.

The stunningly simple basis for Twine Field Theory is the majesty of 22,680! Yes, 22,680!!

As well as being the smallest whole number divisible by ALL the single-digit numbers, with no remainders, it is also the number of stars you can see through an In 'n Out soda straw in a 90-degree sweep from the horizon up to a vertical position, looking straight up, on Mid-Summer's Night, at the Equator, if the British Isles had an Equator! You can't make this stuff up!!! (Of course, this is an average, based on the odds of me being wrong set at 0%. After all, this is science!)


Along with a calculator, I have a full-length mirror. Posing artfully takes practice! But finally, I can truthfully say, "Yes, DO try this at home!"



(When all the phoo-phoo-raw begins to settle, I have "Slinky Field Theory} ready to rocket off the launching pad with The Professor, in my Library, with the Candlestick.)

If you need more prime numbers, Amazon has a program that will meet your needs for only $119 per year.

And the microchip comes for free!

You have violated the Prime Directive.

There will be consequences.

>You can put the laws of physics as we know them on
>a simple sheet of paper amazing. It didn't have
>to be that way.

As noted elsewhere, this is an argument from the apparent order of the universe.

But also consider, the "laws" of physics are mathematic expressions. Math is a pattern language, useful for analyzing and manipulating patterns. Since the universe as humans experience it exhibits repeating patterns, we can analyze it with a pattern language and surprise! surprise!, it yields other patterns!

And when humans see patterns, the Hyperactive Agency Detector kicks in with a dose of Pareidolia and we get a "god of science".

There are two types of people:

Those who believe there are two types of people, and
Those who do not.

You can hardly describe S-Cat as binary when at this moment he has posts on the topic page claiming that there is one God, nay two gods--oh wait, 6 million gods--no, 33 million.

He's far more complex than you imply.

The invisible fairies in my garden are outside the boundaries of science.

My brother, the "flaming fairy" (his words not mine) is an entity that interacts with reality and leaves evidence of his existence.

I will have to find a quote or two that I can take out of context from a physicist who supports my hypothesis. Give me a google- minute...

Oh never-mind... this really is a bunch of gobbledygook that (in all honesty) really is just to gain me some attention and trigger a bunch of responses from people who see through the stupidity of my assertions.

HH =)