• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michio Kaku: Creationist Double Agent?

AtlantaAdonis

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
2,383
Reaction score
717
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God : Space : Science World Report

Always had a feeling about that guy. He's always seemed to be a little weird and somehow "off". This pretty much confirms that. No one need pay any more attention to any papers he writes or invite him to any more scholarly conventions. There is no room for anyone trying to poison the well with religious nonsense.

Article is a little misleading. He didn't say he proved the existence of God, he specifically said:

"I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence," the scientist said. "Believe me, everything that we call chance today won't make sense anymore. 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."

So does this mean that he believes in the omnipotence of God? Yes, and no. Despite his theory of an intelligence being the maker of the universe, he may also be referring to Spinosa's God, which is a sort of deitification of the laws of the universe itself. This is the kind of God that Einstein also concluded years before.

The "intelligence" he was referring to could be a multitude of things but nowhere did he say "God" or "Gods" in the sense of any religious deity.
 
He's not saying that there's a god.

Well that's sort of like the "it's not religion, it's creationism" argument for teaching creationism in schools. I know that Kaku isn't dumb enough to say he "proved God's existence", but we all know it's a trap door to get fundamentalism within the gates of scientific thought.
 
World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God : Space : Science World Report

Always had a feeling about that guy. He's always seemed to be a little weird and somehow "off". This pretty much confirms that. No one need pay any more attention to any papers he writes or invite him to any more scholarly conventions. There is no room for anyone trying to poison the well with religious nonsense.

The few physicists I knew in school were all a little "off." As the article points out Einstein used God to anthropomorphize the laws of nature. This may be nothing more than that.
 
Well that's sort of like the "it's not religion, it's creationism" argument for teaching creationism in schools. I know that Kaku isn't dumb enough to say he "proved God's existence", but we all know it's a trap door to get fundamentalism within the gates of scientific thought.

Nope. That's crazy talk. He's using language to get people interested in science. Calm down about it.
 
World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God : Space : Science World Report

Always had a feeling about that guy. He's always seemed to be a little weird and somehow "off". This pretty much confirms that. No one need pay any more attention to any papers he writes or invite him to any more scholarly conventions. There is no room for anyone trying to poison the well with religious nonsense.
Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2016
Paul French, Managing Editor
Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery | I&T Today I&T Today

Several months ago there was a flurry of headlines claiming that Michio Kaku had proven the existence of God. In this exclusive interview with the famous physicist, Kaku elaborates on what happened.

I&T Today: You recently made a lot of headlines with your discoveries regarding the possible existence of a higher intelligence. Could you explain what you found?

Michio Kaku: There is a website that quoted me incorrectly. That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. And the reference I saw said that I said that you can prove the existence of God. My point of view is different. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That’s called science. However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.

For example....
/have a nice string
Next time try Googling, ie, Michio Kaku, god
Always amazed that people don't/don't think to even check the veracity of large/unusual claims. (and Probably believe other things that haven't checked).
That goes for even those disagreeing with you. Wake Up! Googling something like this should be automatic.
 
Last edited:
Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery
SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2016
Paul French, Managing Editor
Michio Kaku Clears up God Discovery | I&T Today I&T Today


/have a nice string
Next time try Googling, ie, Michio Kaku, god
Always amazed that people don't/don't think to even check the veracity of large/unusual claims. (and Probably believe other things that haven't checked).
That goes for even those disagreeing with you. Wake Up! Googling something like this should be automatic.

...wait....what? Things on the internet may not be 100% accurate!!!!???? No way, the internet would never lie to me!
 
...wait....what? Things on the internet may not be 100% accurate!!!!???? No way, the internet would never lie to me!
Currently the featured article on the OP's website/Home page:
'Science World Report'
Science World Report

[53rd Annual UFO Encounter In Roswell, New Mexico]

Spacemen Are Not All Alone Up There? NASA Released A Video Showing The Appearance Of UFOs And Aliens In Space
Space

Is this the proof of the actuality of the UFOs and aliens in outer space? Brace yourself!

53rd-annual-ufo-encounter-in-roswell-new-mexico.jpg


Innocuous/or credible website names also very tricky. ie, 'VeteransToday' is a Conspiracy/Hate site
ergo, Checking the Home page is always a good idea if you are unfamiliar with the website.
gotta go
 
Last edited:
I'm really not sure why it's that big of a deal if he believed in a God anyway... o_O
 
World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God : Space : Science World Report

Always had a feeling about that guy. He's always seemed to be a little weird and somehow "off". This pretty much confirms that. No one need pay any more attention to any papers he writes or invite him to any more scholarly conventions. There is no room for anyone trying to poison the well with religious nonsense.
My big problem with what you are saying here is that you are calling for people to, because you do not agree any longer agree with the perspective arrived at, no longer "pay any more attention to any papers he writes or invite him to any more scholarly conventions".

That is crazy talk. Its not based on whether he can prove what he says or not? Everything now just automatically henceforth disregarded. Wow.

That to me is a rather scary way of looking at the world.
 
World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God : Space : Science World Report

Always had a feeling about that guy. He's always seemed to be a little weird and somehow "off". This pretty much confirms that. No one need pay any more attention to any papers he writes or invite him to any more scholarly conventions. There is no room for anyone trying to poison the well with religious nonsense.
Wow, overreact much?

Aside from him being misquoted, I have no problems with his holding religious beliefs. He is well aware of the difference between science and religion, and accepts that religious claims are essentially unfalsifiable.

Any scientist can claim that a deity created the universe until the cows come home, as long as he or she understands where that discussion belongs. (I.e. not in a junior high school bio class.)
 
I have a friend who is a Physics professor in a local university. He considers Kaku to be a flake. He's never said why and I have never asked.
 
The few physicists I knew in school were all a little "off." As the article points out Einstein used God to anthropomorphize the laws of nature. This may be nothing more than that.
There are scientists who believe in god.
Tho scientists are 10-20x Less likely to.
Generally, the higher up you go into the eilte/hard sciences of, ie, the NAS, the Less likely theism is.

And when Scientists like Einstein speak of 'god', they are using the term more about the 'awe' of the universe/how large and wondrous it is.
Einstein often found himself having to debunk those who, either intentionally or unintentionally, mischaracterized his use of the word.
He did Not believe in ANY religion (Christianity/Judaism, etc), and did not believe in a personal god. He thought the Bible childish and ridiculous.
IAC, some numbers.

Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'
People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a new study.
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor, 11 Jun 2008
Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God' - Telegraph

Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed. But the conclusions - in a paper for the academic journal Intelligence - have been branded "simplistic" by critics. Professor Lynn, who has provoked controversy in the past with research linking intelligence to race and sex, said university academics were less likely to believe in God than almost anyone else.

A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3% believed in God - at a time when 68.5% of the general UK population described themselves as believers.

A separate poll in the 90s found only 7% of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.

Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts.

He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."...
[......]​
 
Last edited:
AtlantaAdonis said:
Always had a feeling about that guy. He's always seemed to be a little weird and somehow "off". This pretty much confirms that. No one need pay any more attention to any papers he writes or invite him to any more scholarly conventions. There is no room for anyone trying to poison the well with religious nonsense.

That's downright arrogant. We should not foreclose on any possibility before listening to the reason for it, and such foreclosure is more or less the definition of intellectual arrogance.
 
My big problem with what you are saying here is that you are calling for people to, because you do not agree any longer agree with the perspective arrived at, no longer "pay any more attention to any papers he writes or invite him to any more scholarly conventions".

That is crazy talk. Its not based on whether he can prove what he says or not? Everything now just automatically henceforth disregarded. Wow.

That to me is a rather scary way of looking at the world.

Its certainly a scary way of looking at science. But let's not go too far. Next those crazy scientists will be telling us the earth is not flat.
 
Its certainly a scary way of looking at science. But let's not go too far. Next those crazy scientists will be telling us the earth is not flat.
Well of course the world flat, don't see anybody slipping off the sides do we? Isn't it strange that the "science minded" want to hear only what they want to hear, as if that in any way was even close to the scientific method.
 
...wait....what? Things on the internet may not be 100% accurate!!!!???? No way, the internet would never lie to me!

So I can give up on finding a French model?
 
I have a friend who is a Physics professor in a local university. He considers Kaku to be a flake. He's never said why and I have never asked.

Probably jealous. Not unheard of in academic circles. I've running in to both jealousy and arrogance more than once among university profs. You see how they prostitute themselves for grants.
 
Last edited:
Probably jealous. Not unheard of in academic circles. I've running in to both jealousy and arrogance more than once among university profs. You see how they prostitute themselves for grants.

No jealousy. Just opinion.
 
Well that's sort of like the "it's not religion, it's creationism" argument for teaching creationism in schools. I know that Kaku isn't dumb enough to say he "proved God's existence", but we all know it's a trap door to get fundamentalism within the gates of scientific thought.

i dont know that kinda think your going over bored
 
World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God : Space : Science World Report

Always had a feeling about that guy. He's always seemed to be a little weird and somehow "off". This pretty much confirms that. No one need pay any more attention to any papers he writes or invite him to any more scholarly conventions. There is no room for anyone trying to poison the well with religious nonsense.

Consciousness is a universal thing: the earth IS a living thing. Kaku is not saying that we should live by the ten commandments and that Moses in fact saw a burning bush. He is saying that as consciousness in fact exists, the science bow backs that up.

"God" is just a word and concept that we use to label it. To throw away his work is a mistake.
 
Back
Top Bottom